Haryana

StateCommission

RP/72/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STAR TOUR AND TRAVEL - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   72 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       11.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         06.09.2016

  

 

1.      IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110020.

2.      IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Special HUDA Market, Sector 19, Faridabad through Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, Authorized Signatory & Vice President (Claims), IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Units A & B4, 3^rd Floor, TDI Centre, Commercial Plot No.7, Jasola, New Delhi -110025.

Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Star Tour & Travel, C-3550, LGF South Side, Green Field, Faridabad through its Proprietor Ramesh Chand.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Licensing Authority Cum Secretary R.T.A Nuh (Mewat), District Nuh (Mewat).

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present :    Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          By filing this revision petition, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (petitioners) have challenged the orders dated 18.05.2015 & 01.03.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum) whereby its defence was struck off for non-filing of reply and their application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed, respectively.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and opportunity be given to the petitioners to file reply.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is October 17^th, 2016.

3.      Whatever the case may be, 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. 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.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside subject to the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply on the date fixed before the District Forum.

5.      This 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 High Court of Punjab and Haryana Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No. 9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.

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

 

September 06th,  2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M.Bedi) Judicial Member

U.K