Haryana

StateCommission

RP/46/2016

FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

POONAM CHHABRA - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.BAMAL

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   46 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution :       13.06.2016

                                                Date of Decision   :      01.07.2016

 

 

Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19, Ranjangaon, MDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon, Taluka, District Pune, Maharashtra through its Managing Director.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Poonam Chhabra Kukreja wife of Shri Harbans Kukreja, resident of House No.101, Surya Apartments, Sector 21-D, Faridabad, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Vivek Automobiles Limited, A-1, Mohan Cooperative India Estate Mathura Road, Delhi.

 

3.      M/s Triumph Auto (P) Limited, 20/2, Delhi Mathura Road, Opp. Orient Fan Factory, Faridabad.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

Present :             Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                     

O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Fiat India Automobiles Limited-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) is in revision against the order dated December 11^th, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) vide which petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      The main contention of the petitioner is two fold: (a) that the date given by the District Forum was December 21^st, 2015 and not December 11^th, 2015.  In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the cause list dated October 07^th, 2015 of the District Forum wherein the case was adjourned to December 21^st, 2015 (b) now the case is fixed for July 11^th, 2016 and the petitioner be only allowed to argue the matter before the District Forum because the entire evidence has already been led.     

3.      Be that as it may, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings.

4.      This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents 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 High Court of Punjab and Haryana Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No. 9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.

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

 

 

 

July 01st, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

(U.K.)