Haryana

StateCommission

RP/74/2016

UNITECH LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJRANI PAWAR - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PAL SINGH

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   74 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       26.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         31.08.2016

 

 

1.      M/s Unitech Limited, 6, Community Centre Saket, New Delhi -110017.

2.      Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Chairman, M/s Unitech Limited, 6, Community Centre Saket, New Delhi -110017.

3.      Ajay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Limited, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi -110017.

4.      Sanjay Chandra, M/s Unitech Limited, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi -110017.

Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Rajrani Pawar d/o Ram Lajja, resident of House No.62, Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110016.

 

2.      Mrs. Seema wife of Gulab Singh, resident of House No.122, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi -110016.

 

Respondents-Complainants

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

      

 

Present:     Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

                    

                            

O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIALMEMBER

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by M/s Unitech Limited and others-opposite parties against the order dated June 01^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that official of the petitioners has wrongly noted the date August 01^st, 2016 instead of June 01^st, 2016 due to which nobody could appear on behalf of the petitioners on the date fixed and were proceeded ex parte. 

3.      Learned counsel has further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is September 13^th, 2016.

4.      The case is at its initial stage. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.   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 reply and contest the complaint.    For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents-complainants, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      This revision 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 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.      The petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on September 13^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 31.08.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK