Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/27/2015

New Tec Electronics, Panasonic Service Centre - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pawan Kumar Nanda - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Judge, Adv.

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	27  of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.08.2015

 

New Tec Electronics, Panasonic Service Centre, SCO No.495-496, First Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Narinder Bansal.

…… Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Pawan Kumar Nanda son of Sh. K.K. Nanda, resident of House No.3365, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent No.1/Complainant

 

2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, through its Managing Director.
3. Anmol Watches, SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

....Performa Respondents/Opposite Party No.1 and 3

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

         MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

         MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:    Sh.Sanjay Judge, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.

  Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.2 (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that, on 01.11.2013, the complainant purchased one mobile make –Panasonic P-5 from Opposite Party No.3, on payment of Rs.16,983/-, vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. It was stated that after a few days of the purchase of the said mobile handset, it  started giving troubles, and, as such, was taken to Opposite Party No.3, which directed the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2, its Service Centre, for repairs. It was further stated that, however, Opposite Party No.2, failed to rectify the defects of the said mobile handset, despite the fact that the same was deposited with it, a number of times. It was further stated that the said mobile handset suffered from inherent manufacturing defects.
3.        It was further stated that left with no alternative, the complainant served legal notice dated 14.10.2014, upon the Opposite Parties, to redress his grievance, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs. 
4.       Despite deemed service, none put in appearance,  on behalf of Opposite Party No.2,  before the District Forum, as a result whereof, it was  proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 02.06.2015.
5.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, against the order dated 02.06.2015.
6.       We have heard the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner and respondent no.1, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7.       The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2, submitted that, no doubt, on 02.06.2015, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, in the District Forum, in the consumer complaint, bearing No.153 of 2015. He further submitted that, it was only on account of the assurance given to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, by respondent No.1/complainant,  and M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, which had not been impleaded as a party to the complaint by him (respondent No.1/complainant), that since they (M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and respondent No.1/complainant) would amicably settle the matter and would also contest the same, if required, it (Revision-Petitioner) need not appear before the District Forum. He further submitted that, it was only on account of the assurance, aforesaid, given by M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and respondent No.1/complainant, that the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2, did not put in appearance, before the District Forum, on the date fixed. He further submitted that absence of the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2, on 02.06.2015, in the District Forum, was, thus, neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, aforesaid. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.2, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 
8.       On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, on 02.06.2015, despite deemed service, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate. He, however, submitted that he had no objection, if the order impugned is set aside, subject to payment of costs.
9.        Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated   24.03.2015,   and    notice   was ordered to be issued to the Opposite Parties, for 27.04.2015. On 27.04.2015,  the notice sent to Opposite Party No.1 through registered A.D. cover had not been received back. Since more than 30 days had lapsed, from the date of issuance of notice, yet the same had not been received back, with or without any report, the District Forum, presumed that Opposite Party No.1, had been duly served, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte. At the same time, since the notice sent to Opposite Party No.2, through ordinary post, was not received back, with any report, it was ordered to be served through registered A.D. cover for 02.06.2015. However, notice sent to Opposite Party No.2, through registered post for 02.06.2015, was not received back served/un-served. Since more than 30 days had lapsed, from the date of issuance of notice, but the same had not been received back, with or without any report, the District Forum, presumed that Opposite Party No.2, had been duly served. However, despite deemed service, no legally authorized representative, on its behalf,  put in appearance, as a result whereof, Opposite Party No.2, was also proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 02.06.2015.
10.       It is not disputed that the notice sent for the service of Opposite Party No.2, for the date fixed i.e. 02.06.2015, was received by it. The stand taken by the Revision-Petition, that it (Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite  Party No.2), could not appear, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, on account of the assurance having been given to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2), by respondent No.1/complainant,  and M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates, that since they (M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and respondent No.1/complainant) would amicably settle the matter and would also contest the same, if required, does not merit acceptance. It may be stated here, that once the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, had received the notice, it was its legal duty to put its appearance, and put forth its version, and, thereafter, it was the District Forum, to decide, as to whether, it was deficient in rendering service, or not, but it did not do so,  but, on the other hand, relied upon the assurance aforesaid, allegedly given by M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates and respondent No.1/complainant. Thus, it means that despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, for the reasons, best known to it, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.
11.       However, whatever the case may be, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper- technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. In State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that procedure, is, in the ultimate, handmaid of justice, and not its mistress, and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.
12.       In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to Opposite Party No.2, for filing vakalatnama, written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s), so that the complaint could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined, by one Forum, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
13.       For, whatsoever, the reason may be, by not appearing, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, and not filing the vakalatnama, written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, certainly caused delay, in the disposal of complaint, on merits. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, an endeavour should be made to decide every complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory, for examination. In that event, an endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s).  The complaint was filed, in the District Forum, on 20.03.2015. Since, the case is being remanded back, certainly further delay shall be caused, in the disposal thereof. The Revision-Petitioner is, thus, required to be burdened with costs, for causing delay, in the disposal of complaint and to meet the ends of justice.
14.       For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition is accepted. The order dated 02.06.2015, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, qua the Revision-Petitioner (Opposite Party No.2) subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-, by it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2), to respondent No.1/complainant. The District Forum shall grant only one reasonable opportunity, to Opposite Party No.2, for filing vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), and thereafter decide the complaint, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law. The payment of cost to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, referred to above, to respondent No.1/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of cost, shall be made, before filing the vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s). 
15.       The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (II) on 06.08.2015 at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
16.         The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 06.08.2015 at 10.30 A.M.
17.        Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18.       The Revision-Petition file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

August 3, 2015

                                                                                         Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg