Haryana

StateCommission

RP/50/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

REKHA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    50 of 2017

Date of Institution:       22.05.2017

Date of Decision:         04.07.2017

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation) City Sub-Division, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

 

3.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Executive Engineer/Operation Division, Panchkula.

 

…….Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Rekha Rani wife of Shri Umesh Kumar, resident of House No.48, Police Line, Moginand, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

 

……Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                   Mr. Balbir singh, Judicial Member.

                                            

 

Present:     Ms. Alka Joshi, counsel for the petitioners.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

          By filing this revision petition, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short ‘UHBVNL’) have challenged the order dated April 24^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, petitioners were proceeded ex parte. The order is reproduced as under:-

“As per report of the concerned Assistant, notice were issued to the Ops through registered post on 17.03.2017 and the same has not been received back served or unserved. Despite passing of 30 days from the issuance of notice to Ops, it is deemed to be served. Case called several times, since morning. It is already 4 PM. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops. Hence, ops are proceeded exparte. To come up on 16.5.2017 for exparte evidence.”

 

2.      The District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners on the presumption of service. But it is the case of the petitioners that the summons were misplaced by their official due to which nobody could appear before the District Forum. Be that as it may and it is always better to decide the matter on merits. Ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.   

3.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

4.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

5.      The petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on July 05^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

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

 

         

Announced 04.07.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.