Haryana

StateCommission

A/581/2016

DINESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.   581 of 2016

Date of Institution: 28.06.2016

Date of Decision:   29.07.2016

 

Dinesh Kumar aged 38 years, son of late Sh. Ganga Ram, resident of House No.636, Ram Kishan Colony, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      S.D.O, OP’s/Divn No.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Cross Road 12, Ambala Cantt.

2.      Dharam Pal, Line Man, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Division No.1,Cross Road, No.12, Ambala Cantt.

3.      Accountant, OP’s/Division No.1,Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Cross Road No.12, Ambala Cantt.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:     Shri Dinesh Kumar-appellant in person

                   Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

                  

 

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Dinesh Kumar–complainant against the order dated June 03^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

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.         Appellant has urged that the impugned order be set aside and the 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 impugned order is set-aside. The complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on August 23^rd, 2016.

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

  

 

Announced 29.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK