Haryana

StateCommission

A/64/2016

NIDHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SALON DLF VITA PARK - Opp.Party(s)

HARKERAT SINGH

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.   64 of 2016

Date of Institution: 21.01.2016

Date of Decision:   28.03.2016

 

Nidhi aged 38 years wife of Kavi Madan, resident of G-282, Park Place, DLF 5, Gurgaon.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      The Salon at DLF Vita Club, Park Place, Park Drive, DLF Phase 5, Sector 54, Gurgaon through its proprietor Ms. Kompal.

 

2.      Ms. Kompal, Proprietor of The Salon, at DLF Vita Club, Park Place, Park Drive, DLF, Phase 5, Sector 54, Gurgaon.

 

3.      Ms. Lucky, Beautician at The Salon at DLF Vita Club, Park Place, Park Drive, DLF, Phase 5, Sector 54, Gurgaon.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Shri A.S. Khara, proxy counsel for Mr. Harkeerat Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Shri Amit Verma, Authorized Representative on behalf of the respondents.

 

 

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Nidhi–complainant against the order dated December 15^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be restored at its original number.

3.         The purpose of the law is to secure the ends of justice. The laws are not ends in themselves but are only a means for securing justice. It is settled principle of law that contest and decision on merits is always better course unless the concerned party is extremely negligent or the conduct shows a will not to pursue the complaint, dismissal in default shall not subserve the cause of justice.  No such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of the complainant. For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside subject to the cost of Rs.2000/-, which is to be paid by the appellant to the respondents before the District Forum.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on April 08^th, 2016.

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

  

 

Announced 28.03.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK