Haryana

StateCommission

A/924/2018

DILSHAD KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAHUL VERMA

12 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :  924 of 2018

Date of Institution: 26.07.2018

Date of Decision : 12.04.2019

 

 

 

Dilshad Khan son of Sh. Hazrat Ali, resident of Village Samalkha, New Delhi-110037.

                                       Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

1.      Sony India, Global Business Centre, Plot No.32, Ground Floor, Sector 44, Gurgaon (through its Authorized Signatory)

 

2.      Jumbo Electronics Corporation Private Limited, Ambience Mall, Island, N.H.6, Gurugram, Haryana (through its Authorized Signatory)

 Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Rahul Verma, counsel for appellant.

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant Dilshad Khan has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurugram whereby complaint filed by him stood dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

2.      While passing the impugned order, learned District Forum observed that the complaint was taken up several times and even after lunch but none had appeared on behalf of the complainant and as it was already 3.15 P.M, no further wait was justified and hence the complaint was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. 

3.      Pursuant to the directions issued on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the certified copies of the various zimni orders passed by the learned District Forum.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant had filed the complaint in person and had been regularly attending its proceedings.  On 07.04.2017, the opposite party filed the reply.  The case was adjourned to 29.05.2017 for recording evidence of the complainant.  On 29.05.2017, the complainant requested for an adjournment for recording his evidence.  His request was accepted and the case adjourned to 04.09.2017 for evidence.  On 04.09.2017, the complainant again made a request for an adjournment for recording his evidence.  Though the request was accepted and the case adjourned to 16.10.2017 for his evidence but inadvertently, he noted a wrong date.  As such, he could not appear before the learned District Forum on 16.10.2017 for recording his evidence.  Lateron he came to know that his complaint stood dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide the impugned order. It is submitted that in case the complainant is granted another opportunity, he shall put in appearance before the learned District Forum and also record his evidence. 

5.      Be that as it may, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be amply met if the impugned order passed by the  learned District Forum is set aside and the complainant is permitted to continue with the complaint filed by him.

6.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurugram is set aside and the complaint is restored at its original number and place on the board of learned District Forum for further adjudication of the matter.  However, this order shall be subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties before the learned District Forum.

7.      The appellant shall appear before the learned District Forum, Gurugram on 06.05.2019.

8.      This appeal 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 versus Presiding Officer,  Labour Court,  Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002. 

9.      Copy of the order be sent to the learned District Forum.

 

 

Announced 12.04.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK