Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/162/2015

K.S. Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India & others - Opp.Party(s)

Madhu Dayal & Chetan Dayal

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	162 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	10.07.2015
Date of Decision		29.07.2015

 

K.S. Bhatti, son of Late Sh.Bakshish Singh, resident of House No.74, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, through Ministry of Railways, Room No.239, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
3. Station Superintendent, Northern Railways, Chandigarh Railway Station, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the appellant.

                 Sh. Sanjay Pathania, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This  appeal is directed against the order dated 22.06.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the consumer complaint bearing No.266 of 2015, in default of appearance of the complainant (now appellant).

2.       Consumer complaint bearing No.266 of 2015 was filed by the complainant, alleging that on account of negligence of the employees of the Opposite Parties, his suitcase containing cash, as also valuable items, was stolen from train No.14217, Unchahar Express, AC 2 Tier, Coach No.A2, Berth Nos.13 and 15, which he boarded alongwith his wife, from Chandigarh for Allahabad, on 16.04.2013. It was stated that FIR in this regard was also lodged by the complainant, at Railway Station Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It was further stated that the Railway Police failed to locate the suitcase of the complainant, till date. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were required to provide safety to the passengers, as also their luggage, while they were travelling, in the train, but they failed to do so, as a result whereof, the theft, aforesaid, took place. It was further stated that the theft took place, only on account of the reason, that the Railway officials, who were on duty, allowed unauthorized persons, to enter the reserved compartment of the train. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs
3.       On 22.06.2015,  the complaint was called many times, but none entered appearance, on behalf of the complainant, as a result whereof, the same was dismissed in default of his appearance.
4.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 22.06.2015.
5.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6.       The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, on 22.06.2015, none put in appearance, on behalf of the appellant/complainant, as a result whereof, the consumer complaint was dismissed in default of his appearance. She further submitted that  since on 12.06.2015, on account of the demise of Sh.Nek Chand, Founder of Rock Garden, Chandigarh, holiday was declared, by the Chandigarh Administration, as such, the case of the appellant/ complainant, which was fixed on the said date (12.06.2015), for orders, on the application for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, was adjourned to 15.06.2015 and then to 22.06.2015. She further submitted that since the consumer complaint was adjourned to short dates i.e. 15.06.2015 and 22.06.2015, as such, the said fact did not come to her notice. She further submitted that otherwise also the presence of the complainant or his Counsel on the date fixed i.e. 22.06.2015 was not required, as the District Forum was to decide the application filed by him (complainant), for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint.  She further submitted that, on account of the reasons, aforesaid, neither the complainant, nor she (Counsel), could appear in the District Forum, on 22.06.2015, when the complaint was called. She further submitted that her (Counsel) absence or absence of the complainant, on  22.06.2015, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, referred to above. She further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the appellant/complainant, as in that event, he would be condemned unheard. She further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside.
7.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the absence of the complainant (now appellant), on 22.06.2015, in the District Forum, was  intentional and deliberate.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.  
8.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves  to be accepted, and the case is liable to be remanded back, for fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.  It may be stated here, that perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint case was taken up on 28.05.2015, and was adjourned to 04.06.2015, for moving an application for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, by the complainant, as also for  preliminary hearing. On 04.06.2015, application for condonation of delay, affidavit and certain documents were filed, and arguments were heard on the same. As such, the consumer complaint was adjourned to 08.06.2015 and 12.06.2015, for order on the said application. On 12.06.2015, on account of the sudden death of Sh. Nek Chand, Founder of the Rock Garden, Chandigarh, the complaint case was adjourned to 15.06.2015, for orders. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.06.2015 for orders, yet, as stated above, on the said date i.e. 22.06.2015, the complaint was called many times, but none entered appearance, on behalf of the complainant, and, as such the same was dismissed  in  default of his (complainant)  appearance, by it (District Forum).
9.       It may be stated here, that on 22.06.2015, only an order on the application for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, moved by the complainant, was to be passed by the District Forum. The complainant was not to do anything on that date.  Even, in the absence of the complainant, the District Forum could have decided the application for condonation of delay and proceed further accordingly, but it failed to do so, and adopted a shortcut method by dismissing the complaint, in default of appearance of the complainant. It is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to the hyper-technicalities. When the hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same.
10.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted.  The impugned order dated 22.06.2015 is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to restore the same, to its original number, proceed further,  from the stage, at which, it was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant, and decide the same, afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 
11.        The Parties are directed to appear before District Forum (II) on 10.08.2015, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings. 
12.       The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 10.08.2015, at 10.30 A.M.
13.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14.       The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

29.07.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rg