Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/14/2024

YASH PAUL MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARANGAN HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

AMMISH GOEL

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

===========

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/14/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	04/03/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	16/04/2024

 

 

 

 

 

[1]   Yash Paul Mittal son of Sh. Babu Ram, Resident of House No. 754, Sector 91, JLPL, Mohali (Punjab).

 

[2]   Anju Bala wife of Sh. Yash Paul Mittal, Resident of House No. 754, Sector 91, JLPL, Mohali (Punjab).

 

…… Petitioners

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]    Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at Unit No. 225 A & B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director.

 

[2]    Vijay Madan, Director, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Office at Unit No.225 A & B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon (Haryana).

 

[3]    Gaurav Jain, Director, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Office at Unit No.225 A & B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon (Haryana).  

 

[4]    Nikhil Jain, Director, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Office at Unit No.225 A & B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon (Haryana). 

[5]    Rakesh Kalra, Director, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Office at Unit No.225 A & B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon (Haryana). 

 

[6]    Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., having its Branch Office at SCO 146-147, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

     IInd Address: Plot No. 143-A, Purv Marg, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the Petitioners.

 

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

1.     Challenge in the present Revision Petition is to the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. District Commission”) in MA/4/2023 in EA/65/2022, whereby it dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners/DHs for service of the Respondents/JDs through their counsel or through process server/naib court attached to the Ld. District Commission.

 

2.     The core question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the order impugned before us. 

 

3.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

4.     We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also carefully perused the record with his able assistance.

 

5.     The backdrop of the case is that the decree dated 07.01.2022 was passed by the Ld. District Commission and to comply with this decree, the Decree Holders/Complainants (Petitioners herein) moved an execution application and in that execution application the order dated 18.12.2023, which is impugned before us, as mentioned above, was passed.

 

6.     Record transpires that in the execution application summons had been issued by the Ld. District Commission to Judgment Debtors for their appearance on 23.08.2022  vide order dated 13.05.2022. However, the same were received back unserved by the postal authorities with the report “no such person”. Presuming the said report to be correct, Ld. District Commission directed the Decree Holders to furnish the correct address of the Judgment Debtors so that notice/summons could be served upon them. Instead of providing correct address of the Judgment Debtors, the Decree Holders filed application to serve them through their counsel who has been representing them in the pending consumer complaints before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh by Naib Court/ Process Server attached to District Commission-I, Chandigarh. 

 

7.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, inter alia, submitted that the Judgment Debtors have been running their office in the same premises which had been furnished by the Decree Holders in the array of memo of parties, but they had been intentionally avoiding the service of summons. He has further submitted that the Judgment Debtors had been represented by their counsel in the pending consumer complaints before the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh. However, the Ld. District Commission erroneously dismissed the application for service of Judgment Debtors through counsel being contrary to facts on record and settled law observing that notice through counsel would amount to violation of mandatory provisions of Section 65 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

8.     The case at hand depicts how the Court finds itself helpless when the Judgment Debtors starts adopting tactics so as to avoid service of the notice/summons and put the rights of the Decree Holders to peril.

 

9.     It is well settled law that procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. The Ld. District Commission has to be more proactive in applying its minds even to the mundane aspects of service without which cases before it and proceedings in such cases are reduced to mere file pushing and not the exercise of serious and real adjudicatory functions of the court. At any rate, for disposal of the execution application the Ld. District Commission should have allowed the application of the Decree Holders for securing the presence of the Judgment Debtors through their counsel. To cap it all, it is to be remembered that technicalities and too much a rigid stand is not at all conducive for advancing the course of justice. Rules and procedures are handmade to advance the course of justice and not to subvert the same. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Ld. District Commission is liable to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

 

10.     In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, and the decision dated 18.12.2023 of the Ld. District Commission, is set aside. The Ld. District Commission is directed to take steps for effecting service upon the counsel for the Judgment Debtors appearing on their behalf before the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh.

  

11.     Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh on 23.04.2024, on which date, execution application is already listed before it.

 

12.     Complete record of complaint file be sent back to the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

 

13.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

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

 

15.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

16^th April,2024

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”