State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading ... vs Shri Gurdeep Singh on 22 October, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Revision-Petition No. : 45 of 2014 Date of Institution : 21.10.2014 Date of Decision : 22/10/2014 1. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company, Franchise of Caf Coffee Day Shop No.47, Ground Floor, Plot No.178-178A, Industrial Area Phase-1, Elante Mall, Chandigarh, Phone No.9357593482, through its Managing Director. Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 2. Coffee Day Square 23/2 Vittal Mallaya Road, Bangalore 560001, Phone No.08040012345, through its Managing Director. ..Opposite Party No.2 V e r s u s Shri Gurdeep Singh, aged 23 years, son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of Village Mehrampur Tapprian, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab. .Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Bipin, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 30.09.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.1 (now the Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.335 of 2014, before the District Forum, alleging that on 01.07.2014, the complainant alongwith his family members, went to the Caf of Opposite Party No.1, to have a cup of coffee. The complainant also ordered cappuccino and one plate of garlic bread, worth Rs.273/-, vide bill No.3731 dated 01.07.2014. It was stated that when the complainant, after having the said snacks, went to the counter of Opposite Party No.1, for payment, to his utter surprise, he was asked to pay additional amount of Rs.08.19 Ps., towards service charges. It was stated that the Opposite Parties failed to disclose, as to who authorized them to charge such service charges, form the customers. It was further stated that when the complainant refused to accede to the illegal demand of service charges, made by the Opposite Parties, he was insulted in front of his family members. As such, left with no other alternative, the complainant had to pay the said service charges, to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs.
3. Opposite Party No.1 was deemed to be served, but none put in appearance, on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.09.2014, by the District Forum.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 30.09.2014.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1, submitted that, no doubt, Opposite Party No.1 was deemed to be served, yet none put in appearance, on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.09.2014, by the District Forum. He further submitted that, on 30.09.2014, when the authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1, was on his way, to appear before the District Forum, in the consumer complaint, his vehicle developed some engine trouble, as a result whereof, the same had to be taken to the mechanic, where it took some-time for repairs. He further submitted that, thereafter, by the time the authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1, reached the District Forum, it (Opposite Party No.1) had already been proceeded against exparte, by it (District Forum). He further submitted that non-appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but on account of the circumstances, referred to above. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, and Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, is not allowed to submit vakalatnama, written version and furnish evidence, by way of affidavit(s), irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1), as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.1, is liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to the remanded back, to it, for fresh decision, after affording it an opportunity of filing the vakalatnama, written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s).
7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, on 30.09.2014, in the District Forum, no doubt, was intentional and deliberate, yet in the interest of justice, he has no objection, if the exparte order is set aside, subject to imposition of heavy costs upon it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1).
8. Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint was admitted by it, on 09.07.2014, whereafter, notice was issued to Opposite Party No.1, through ordinary post, and to Opposite Party No.2, through registered A.D. cover, for 20.08.2014. Since notice to Opposite Party No.1, was issued through ordinary post, which had not been received back undelivered, nor any other report, in that regard was received, it was ordered by the District Forum, to issue fresh notice to it, through registered A.D. cover. As such, fresh notice for service was sent to Opposite Party No.1, through registered A.D. cover, for 30.09.2014. Thereafter, since more than 30 days, had lapsed, after the notice for service of Opposite Party No.1 was sent through registered A.D. cover, and none put in appearance, on that date (30.09.2014), on its (Opposite Party No.1), behalf, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.
9. It may be stated here that, 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. In 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 Rule, therefore, has 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. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.
10. No doubt, it was, on account of the negligence of the authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1, that he did not put in appearance, on the date fixed i.e. 30.09.2014, in the District Forum, due to the alleged defect, which developed in his vehicle. It may be stated here, that if the alleged defect had developed, in the vehicle of the authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1, on 30.09.2014, when he was on his way to the District Forum, to attend the proceedings in the consumer complaint, it was required of him, to make a telephonic call and inform some Official of the office, to inform the District Forum, to wait for some time, or in the alternative request it to give some short date, but he failed to do so. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, every endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). On account of the negligence of Opposite Party No.1, the case is being remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh decision, on merits, after giving opportunity to it (Opposite Party No.1/ Revision-Petitioner), to submit its written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s), as also vakalatnama. Due to this reason, certainly delay, in the final disposal of complaint, on merits, shall be caused. Such delay is solely attributable to Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, is, thus, liable to be burdened with costs. Rs.3000/-, as cost, if imposed upon the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, in our considered opinion, shall meet the ends of justice.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition of Revision-Petitioner No.1 is accepted.
The impugned order dated 30.09.2014 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to afford one reasonable opportunity, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, to submit vakalatnama, written version, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s) and, thereafter, permit the complainant/respondent, if need be, to lead evidence, in rebuttal, by way of affidavit(s), and then decide the same (case), afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, is, however, burdened with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Payment of costs, by Revision-Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.1, to the respondent/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the costs shall be paid, before the vakalatnama, written version and evidence, are filed, by Revision-Petitioner No.1/ Opposite Party No.1.
12. The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (II) on 31.10.2014, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
13. The District Forum 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. 31.10.2014, at 10.30 A.M.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The Revision-Petition file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced October 22, 2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Rg