STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

Max Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman, C/o Max House, 1 Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110020.

…… Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Sh. Raj Kumar Gandhi, son of Late Sh. Sat Pal Gandhi, resident of House No.76, Bakshi Niwas, Dhangu Road, Pathankot (Pb.), presently residing at House No.1270, Sector 8, Chandigarh, U.T.

....Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.            3.            On 20.03.2014, Ms. Jamini Tiwari, Advocate, put in appearance, and filed her memo of appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party. The Consumer Complaint was adjourned to 04.04.2014, for filing vakalatnama,    

4.           

5.           

6.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

7.           written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit,He further submitted that his absence, on behalf of the Opposite Party, on the date fixed, in the District Forum, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reason, aforesaid. It was further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against the Opposite Party, being illegal, is liable to be set aside

8.           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted thatthe absence of the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, on 04.04.2014, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate. He further submitted that, no cogent and convincing material was produced, on record, by the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner (Counsel in the complaint also), to establish,Redressal Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 04.04.2014, whichprevented him, from causing his appearance, , on the said date.

9.           Perusal of the record as also for reply and consideration, on the application, moved by the Counsel for the complainant, for production of certain documents, on record. However, on 04.04.2014, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, and the Consumer Complaint was adjourned to 23.04.2014, for exparte arguments of the complainant.However,      

10.        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.ciple 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.

11.        Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh,in some case, and was unable to come present, on the date fixed, in the alternative, he could have instructed his Junior Counsel, to put in appearance, and file his (Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel)vakalatnama, written version and evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Party, or request the District Forum, to give a short date, for the purpose, but he failed to do so. 

12.        According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, every complaint is required to be decided, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party, except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). 

13.        No other point, was urged, by the

14.        For the reasons recorded above, the Revision- Petition is accepted. The order dated 04.04.2014, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, to the complainant/respondent. The District Forum shall grant only one reasonable opportunity to the Opposite Party, 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 to the tune of Rs.2000/-, referred to above, to the complainant/respondent, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of costs, shall be made, before filing vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s). 

15.        The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on

16.        04.06.2014

17.        Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.        

Pronounced

30.05.2014

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Rg