STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Randeep Sharma S/o Sh.K.D Sharma, R/o Qtr. No.2, Type V, CRPF Camp Hallomajra, Chandigarh-160002

                                                                                        ...  Appellant.

                                               Versus

1. M/s Emm Pee Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory office plot No.177,H&L, Industrial Area,Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002.
2. Toyota Bharat Limited  through its authorized signatory office,

     1.Address:1, Gurgaon Delhi Expy, Nitin Vihar, Khandsa, Sector-          37, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

2^nd.Address: Head Office India-No.24, 10^th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

                                                                    ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended from time to time, against order dated 1.02.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.705/2021.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:         Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.

                               Sh.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for  the Respondents.

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.02.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/705/2021,for want of prosecution and non-compliance of the order of the Commission. 

2.                The Appellant/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission through Sh.Kohal Dev, Advocate against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for allegedly selling defective vehicle to the complainant.  It is averred  in the appeal  that the complainant being layman trusted his Counsel who was updating him regarding the proceedings in the complaint. However, when copy of the order dated 1.2.2023 was received on 7.3.2023 he noticed that the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. The complainant then approached his Counsel Sh. Kohal Dev, who informed that he was regularly appearing in the Ld. District Commission upto 24.5.2022 and thereafter due to some medical problems he could not appear and entrusted his all legal matters to some of his colleagues who did not pursue the matter. After dismissal of the complaint, the complainant engaged a new Counsel and filed this appeal praying therein that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint may be restored and remanded back to the Ld. District Commission to its original position.  

3.                Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondents and on their behalf Sh.S.R.Bansal,Advocate appeared and filed his Vakalatnama.

4.               We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.                 A perusal of the complaint file of the Ld. Lower Commission shows that the complaint is at the summoning stage as Opposite Party No.2 is  yet to be served on filing its fresh address by the complainant/appellant  and Opposite Party No.1 is to file its evidence by way of affidavit. Counsel for the appellant contended that it was  negligence on the part of earlier counsel, due to which the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution as his colleague did not pursue the matter.   On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the contention and stated that the appeal be dismissed as  it was for the appellant to pursue his complaint by contacting his Counsel.  

6.                It is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. When 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.  

7.                In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to the complainant, to prosecute the complaint, so that the same could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined   one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted.  The  impugned  order is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the Ld. Lower Commission, with a direction to restore  the same  to its original number, proceed further  from the stage at which it was dismissed for non-prosecution and decide the same afresh on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 

9.                However, before parting with the order, we deem it appropriate to burden the appellant/ complainant with costs of Rs.2,000/- for causing delay in the disposal of complaint.   Costs shall be paid to the respondents/opposite parties before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

10.               The Parties are directed to appear, before Ld. Lower Commission on 21.07.2023, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings. 

11.               The Ld. Lower Commission 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. 21.07.2023 at 10.30 A.M.

12.               Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.               The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.