Haryana

StateCommission

RP/21/2016

BPTP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

WG CDR SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK GOYAL

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   21 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       17.02.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         11.03.2016

  

1.      M/s BPTP Limited through its Authorized Representative Mr. Kumar Saurabh, registered office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      M/s BPTP Limited through its Authorized Representative Mr. Kumar Saurabh, BPTP Crest -15, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, NH-8, Gurgaon-122015.

Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

 

Wg. Cdr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, 307B, Management Apartment, Plot No.17, Sector 5,  Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present :    Sh. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The instant revision petition has been filed by M/s M/s BPTP Limited and another-opposite parties (petitioners) against the order dated November 04^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum), whereby their defence was struck off for non-filing of reply.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the impugned order be set aside and opportunity be given to the petitioners to file reply.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is May 31^st, 2016.

3.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Salim Haiji Abdul Khayumsab versus Kumar and others, 2005 (4), RCR (Civil), 823, observed that the object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.  Thus, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated November 04^th, 2015 is set-aside subject to conditional cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply on the date fixed before the District Forum, that is, May 31^st, 2016.

4.      This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No. 9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.

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

 

 

Announced 11.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK