STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.    219 of 2015

Date of Institution:  09.03.2015

Date of Decision:   19.05.2015

Bharat Singh son of Sh. Shoran Singh, resident of Ror Majra, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director.

2.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Karnal through its Executive Engineer, Karnal.

3.      S.D.O “OP” Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Nissing District Karnal.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

Present:     Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Shri N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the respondents.

O R D E R

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

The instant appeal has been filed by Bharat Singh–complainant against the orders dated November 18^th, 2014 and January 05^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Karnal, whereby, the complaint was dismissed in default and the application for setting aside the order dated November 18^th, 2014 was also dismissed respectively.

2.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (respondents herein).

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

4.         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. 

5.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the orders dated November 18^th, 2014 and January 05^th, 2015 are set-aside.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on July 02^nd, 2015.

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

UK