Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/9/2015

Spicejet Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeshwar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Chand Deep Jindal & Amit Puri,Adv.

04 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	09 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2015

 

Spicejet Limited, through CEO, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana

…… Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Rajeshwar Sigh, resident of House No.693, Phase-6, Mohali.

…..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. M/s Pack Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., through Sh. Anup Singh, Proprietor, SCO 15, 2^nd Floor, Sector -17E, Chandigarh-160017.

…..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

          MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

          MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh.Chand Deep Jindal, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.

                    Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now one of which is the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1), were proceeded against exparte.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that, the complainants booked tickets, in the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, through Opposite Party No.3, for Delhi-Goa-Delhi from 16.06.2014 to 21.06.2014. It was stated that four tickets of the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, from Delhi-Goa-Delhi, were booked and confirmed, for which the complainants paid an amount of Rs.45,000/-. It was further stated that boarding passes were issued to the complainants, on 16.06.2014 from Delhi to Goa and back for 21.06.2014. It was further stated that the complainants had also carried with them their baby pram, for the comfort of their minor child aged 11 months, for which they had paid extra amount of Rs.3,000/-. It was further stated that on 21.06.2014, when the flight of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 reached Delhi, the complainants found their luggage missing and were stranded for hours at the Airport. It was further stated that, not only this, the baby pram was received by the complainants, in damaged condition, as a result whereof, they had to face a lot of physical harassment. It was further stated that the complainants lodged a complaint at the Spice Jet Desk at New Delhi Airport i.e. Opposite Party No.2, but to no avail. It was further stated that a number of emails were sent, as also a number of telephone calls were made to the Opposite Parties, by them (complainants), to compensate them, for their (Opposite Parties) aforesaid acts but they refused to do so.
3.       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 complainants, 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, seeking various reliefs. 
4.       The complainants led evidence, in support of their case. 
5.       Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, on 23.03.2015.      
6.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 23.03.2015 .
7.       We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8.       The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that, no doubt, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, on 23.03.2015, in the District Forum, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, on the said date, by it (District Forum), yet, it was never duly served. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, wrong, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.1, by raising presumption that since the notice sent to it, had not been received back, despite the lapse of a period of 30 days, it was deemed to be served. He further submitted that the presumption being rebuttable, stood rebutted, once Opposite Party No.1, claimed that it was not duly served. It was further submitted that, it was only on 13.04.2015, when in another case titled as “Rajiv Tandon Vs. Spice Jet”, in the District Forum, the petitioner went to appear in the same, it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1) came to know that the consumer complaint bearing No.73 of 2015 was also listed for the said date (13.04.2015), wherein it (Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1), had been proceeded against exparte on 23.03.2015, on the ground of deemed service. He further submitted that the absence of Opposite Party No.1, in the District Forum, on 23.03.2015, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, aforesaid. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, and Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, is not allowed to submit its written version, and furnish evidence, by way of affidavit(s),  irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1), 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.1, is liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to the remanded back, to it, for fresh decision, after affording it an opportunity of filing the written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s).
9.         On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that  the absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, on 23.03.2015, in the District Forum, despite deemed service was intentional and deliberate. He further submitted that, in the interest of justice, he had no objection if the impugned order is set aside, subject of payment of costs. 
10.         No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1,  that it (Opposite Party No.1), could not appear, on account of the reason, that summons for its service, was not received by it, and, as such, it was not aware that the consumer complaint had been filed against it, by the complainant. It may be stated here, that the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1,  failed to produce, on record, any document, in order to establish that the address furnished by the complainant, in the consumer complaint, was incorrect or incomplete, as a result whereof, summons could not be served upon it, and, as such, it could not put in appearance, on the date fixed i.e. 23.03.2015, for want of service. Therefore, in the absence of production of any cogent material, in the shape of document(s), the bald assertions of Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1,  with regard to its absence, in the District Forum, on the date fixed i.e. 23.03.2015, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, it means that despite  deemed  service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, 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.         No doubt, perusal of the District Forum record, clearly reveals that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now one of which is the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1), were proceeded against exparte, on 23.03.2015, as none put in appearance, on that date (23.03.2015), on their behalf, despite deemed service, yet, 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.1/Revision-Petitioner, 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), Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, certainly caused delay, in the disposal of complaint, on merits. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, endeavour should be made to decide the 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, 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 05.02.2015. Since, the case is being remanded back, certainly 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 23.03.2015, rendered by the District Forum, against Opposite Party No.1 only, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-, by it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1), to respondent No.1/complainant. The District Forum shall grant only one date to Opposite Party No.1 only, 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 costs of Rs.3,000/-to the complainant/respondent No.1, by the Revision-Petition/Opposite Party No.1 only, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of costs aforesaid, shall be made, before filing the written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s) by Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner.
15.         The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 11.05.2015 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. 11.05.2015 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

04.05.2015

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg