Haryana

StateCommission

RP/129/2016

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJEEV GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GUPTA

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No :  129 of 2016

Date of Institution:        21.12.2016

Date of Decision :         23.12.2016

 

 

1.      Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali through Ashutosh Kalia, Authorized Representative.

2.      Vodafone Store, SCO 280, Main Market, Opposite St. Xavier School, Sector 20, Panchkula through its Authorized Representative.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rajeev Gupta son of Sh. Tek Chand Garg, resident of House No.138, Sector 25, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Vodafone Mobile Services Limited and another-opposite parties (petitioners herein) against the order dated November 30^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that petitioners were never served upon.  The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is December 24^th, 2016 for recording evidence of complainant.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioners.  Petitioners were proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

          “As per report of the concerned Assistant, notice was issued to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 through registered post on 22.10.2016 and the same has not been served or unserved.  Despite passing of 30 days from the issuance of notice to opposite parties No.1 and 2, it is deemed to be served.  Case called several times since morning.  It is already 4 p.m.  But here is no appearance on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 and 2.  It seems that opposite parties No.1 and 2 are not interested to defend their case.  Hence, the opposite parties are hereby proceeded exparte.  Adjourned to 24.12.2016 for filing evidence of the complainant.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed.  Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. 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 petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.   

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

6.      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.

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

 

Announced 23.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK