STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. | : | 36 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 10.12.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.01.2014 |
Fore School of Management, B-18 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, through its Director Dr. J.K. Dass
…… Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party
V e r s u s
V. K. Khanna s/o Sh. J.P. Khanna, Flat No.53, Young Dweller`s Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.
....Respondent/complainant
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
Sh. Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte; the order dated 09.10.2013, vide which the application dated 20.09.2013, filed by it, for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.09.2013, aforesaid, was dismissed,holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order; and the order dated 12.11.2013, vide which it (District Forum), allowed the application for condonation of delay of 522 days, moved by the complainant/respondent, in filing the complaint.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, who was also Counsel, in the main complaint, submitted that, no doubt, on 06.09.2013, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party, in the District Forum, when the complaint case was fixed, for filing reply and evidence on its (Opposite Party) behalf, as also for consideration of the application, moved by the complainant, for condonation of delay of 522 days, in filing the same (complaint). He further submitted that, his (Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Counsel), Clerk, noted down the wrong date, as 20.09.2013, instead of the actual date i.e. 06.09.2013, as a result whereof, he (Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Counsel for the Opposite Party),He further submitted that, an application dated 20.09.2013, was filed in the District Forum, for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2013, but the same was dismissed by it, vide order dated 09.10.2013, on the ground that it had no Jurisdiction, to review/recall its own order. He further submitted that, on the other hand, the District Forum, vide its order dated 12.11.2013, allowed the application of the respondent/ complainant, seeking condonation of delay of 522 days, in filing the complaint.He further submitted that absence of the Opposite Party or its Counsel, on the date fixed i.e. 06.09.2013, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, aforesaid.He further submitted that, as such, the orders dated 06.09.2013, 09.10.2013 and 12.11.2013, are liable to be set aside, otherwise, miscarriage of justice, shall occasion.
8. .
9.
10. may be stated here, that, no doubt, there was negligence, on the part of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, as he did not confirm the correct date (06.09.2013), which was given, in the complaint, by the District Forum, for the purpose aforesaid, and, blindly relied upon the wrong date, allegedly noted by his Clerk, as a result whereof, the Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte, which order could not be recalled/reviewed by the District Forum, as it had no Jurisdiction to do so, as a result whereof, it (Opposite Party) could not file reply to the main complaint, as also to the application for condonation of delay of 522 days, filed by the complainant, as also evidence, in the shape of affidavits. Whatever, the case may, since, the Counsel did not take the requisite measures, referred to above, negligence was attributable to him.State Of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmaid of justice and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rules, therefore, have to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. Further the object of all the Courts and Tribunals is to dispense justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
11. , it is held that an opportunity should be granted to the Opposite Party, to submit its written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), to the main complaint, as also the application for condonation of delay of 522 days, in filing the complaint, moved by the complainant, so that the dispute, could be decided, on merits, one way or the other, by one Forum. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. When the procedural wrangles, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The orders impugned dated 06.09.2013 and 12.11.2013, thus, are liable to be set aside.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Pronounced.
January 1, 2014
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Rg
