Haryana

StateCommission

A/558/2015

KAMLA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

RAHISH PAHWA

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.   558 of 2015

Date of Institution: 02.07.2015

Date of Decision:   18.08.2015

 

Kamla Devi w/o Sh. Lachhman Ram s/o Sh. Rati Ram, r/o Village Kalri Jagir, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer, U.H.B.V.N, Sub Division, Newal, District Karnal.

                            Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

         

                                      

Present:     Ms. Rahish Pahawa, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Shri N.K. Bajaj, Advocate for the opposite party.

                    

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Kamla Devi–complainant has challenged the order dated May 12^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Karnal, 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 party (respondent herein).

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that 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 order dated May 12^th, 2015 is set-aside. The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on September 08^th, 2015.

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

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK