Haryana

StateCommission

RP/9/2016

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SULTAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.KUKREJA

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  09 of 2016

Date of Institution:        21.01.2016

Date of Decision :         10.02.2016

 

 

John Deere India Private Limited, Unit John Deere Technology Center, Tower XIV, Cyber City, Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 through its Authorized Signatory Ms. Surekha Arukar, General Manager-Legal in complaint mentioned as John Deere India Private Limited, III Floor, Tower No.15, Cyber City, Magapatta City, Hadbasar, Pune-411013 (Maharashtra).

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Sultan Singh son of Shri Nathu Ram, resident of Village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Brar Automobiles, Authorized Dealer, John Deere India Private Limited, Near Water Works, Sirsa Road, Mandi Dabwali-125104.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

                                                                                                                   

Present:               Shri P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by John Deere India Private Limited-opposite party No.2 against the order dated November 06^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is February 25^th, 2016.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioner.  Petitioner was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

          “OP No.2 summoned through RC dated 01.10.2015.  Case called.  None appeared on behalf of OP No.2.  A period of more than 30 days elapsed.  It is 3.45 P.M. Waited sufficiently.  Let OP No.2 proceeded ex parte.  Case is adjourned for evidence of complainant to 22.12.2015.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on November 06^th, 2015, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed. Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.   For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on February 25^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 10.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK