Haryana

StateCommission

RP/70/2016

TORQUE MOTORS CAR PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURINDER - Opp.Party(s)

ANANDESHWAR GAUTAM

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                     

                                                Revision Petition No.   70 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       11.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         01.09.2016

 

Torque Motors Car Private Limited, Opposite HUDA Nursery, Near Atul Kataria Chowk, Sukhrail Enclave, Sector 17A, Gurgaon.

 Petitioner-Opposite Party

 

 

Versus

 

Surinder son of Sh. Inder Singh, resident of Jatwara Mohalla, Permanently residing at Village Nizampur, New Delhi, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

 

Respondent-Complainant

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner

                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIALMEMBER

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Torque Motors Car Private Limited-opposite party against the order dated March 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that due to misunderstanding of the date, nobody could appear on behalf of the petitioner on the date fixed before the District Forum and was proceeded ex parte. 

3.      Learned counsel has further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is October 14^th, 2016.

4.      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 petitioner 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.3000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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 petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on October 14^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 01.09.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK