Haryana

StateCommission

RP/17/2017

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANKAJ SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP BERWAL

27 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                     

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  17 of 2017

Date of Institution:        17.02.2017

Date of Decision :         27.03.2017

 

Bajaj Auto Limited through its Managing Director/Manager, Akurdi, Pune.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Pankaj Sharma son of Sh. Vedpal Sharma, Resident of Village and Post Office Patti Afgan, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Rajendra Automobiles through its Managing Director/Manager, Ambala Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

Respondent -Opposite Party No.1

3.      A.K. Automobiles, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Proprietor.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

         

 

 

Present:               Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for petitioner

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present revision petition, Bajaj Auto Limited-opposite party No.3 (petitioner herein) has challenged the orders dated August 17^th and December 15^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and it’s application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed respectively.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be given to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is April 06^th, 2017.

3.      It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.   For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders dated August 17^th and December 15^th, 2016 are set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

5.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.  In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on April 06^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced 27.03.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K