State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harbans Singh vs M/S Kwality Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 27 September, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.300 of 2017
Date of Institution: 02.05.2017.
Date of Decision : 27.09.2017.
1. Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Balwant Singh R/o H.No. HM-15, Phase-
II, Mohali.
2. Harinder Singh S/o Sh. Harbans Singh R/o H.No. HM-15, Phase-
II, Mohali at present residing at 204, Panatella Cape, NW Calgiri,
ABT3KOW3 Alberta, Canada through his SPA (father) Sh. Harbans
Singh S/o Sh. Balwant Singh R/o H.No. HM-15, Phase-II, Mohali.
......Complainants.
Versus
1. M/s. Kwality Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Head Office 814, Shakuntla
Building, 59 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its
Directors/Managing Director/Authorized Signatories earlier known
as Kwality Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
2. Sh. Hardeep Singh, Director, M/s. Kwality Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.,
Head Office 814, Shakuntla Building, 59 Nehru Place, New Delhi-
110019.
3. Sh. Harpreet Singh Mann S/o Niranjan Singh, Director M/s.
Kwality Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Head Office 814, Shakuntla Building,
59 Nehru Place, New Delhi, permanent resident of Village Batoli
(Kurli Batoli), P.S. Lalru, P.O Jadout, District SAS Nagar (Mohali),
Punjab.
......Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 17 (1) (a) (i)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
C.C. No. 300 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate alongwith Sh. Harbans Singh, in person For OPs No.1 & 2 : Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate For OP No.3 : Ex-parte JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT In view of the statement of the complainant along with his counsel, which has been separately recorded, complaint is dismissed as withdrawn having been compromised.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 27, 2017 SK/-
C.C. No. 300 of 2017 3STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2084 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.691 of 2017 Date of Institution: 06.10.2017 Date of Decision : 10.10.2017 Shingar Bansal wife of Krishan Bansal S/o Ramji Dass, Resident of H.No.320, Sector 20-C, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
......Appellant/Complainant Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd through its Chairman/M.D, The Mall Patiala.
2. XEN., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division Mandi Gobindgarh, GT Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division Mandi Gobindgarh, GT Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
......Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal against the orders dated 17.02.2017 and 10.03.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Advocate Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been preferred against the orders dated 17.02.2017 and 10.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short M.A. No. 2084 of 2017 2 In/and F.A. No. 691 of 2017 'District Forum'). By order dated 17.02.2017 the complaint was dismissed in default for non-appearance of complainant and vide order dated 10.03.2017 application for restoration of complaint was dismissed by the District Forum having no power of review.
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this case are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") alleging that he has allegedly purchased a house of 2 biswas from Arun Kumar Singla, Sanjay Singla Ss/o Mohinder Kumar and Babita D/o Mohinder Kumar vide sale deed dated 03.01.2013. In the said premises, an electric meter connection bearing A/c No.3003809001 (old no.K21GT210013N) was running in the name of Mohinder Kumar S/o Muni Lal, father of the vendors. He has purchased the property from Mohinder Kumar along with said connection. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant/complainant to explain how this complaint is maintainable when the meter does not exist either in the name of the vendors from whom he has purchased the property.
Admittedly, the meter is in the name of Mohinder Kumar. It has not been got transferred from the Electricity Department by the complainant from the name of Mohinder Kumar. Learned counsel M.A. No. 2084 of 2017 3 In/and F.A. No. 691 of 2017 failed to answer the said question. Otherwise also, even if he purchased it from Arun Kumar, Sanjay Singla and Babita, children of Mohinder Kumar etc vide sale deed dated 03.01.2013, then also complainant has no right over the electric connection which existed in the name of Mohinder Kumar. He has not impleaded Mohinder Kumar as OP in the complaint. We don't find any merit in the appeal and even the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. So far as the impugned order dated 10.03.2017, dismissing the application for restoration of the complaint is concerned, as we have already discussed above that there is no merit in the appeal/complaint, no useful purpose will be served if the same is allowed. Even otherwise, there is delay of 170 days in filing the appeal which has not been explained properly and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the same. Accordingly, this application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
4. Before parting, it is observed that the complainant is as liberty to avail the other remedy, if any, available to him in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 10, 2017 SK/-
M.A. No. 2084 of 2017 4
In/and F.A. No. 691 of 2017 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2037 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No. 682 of 2017 Date of Institution: 26.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017.
M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd., 118 UFF, Prakash Deep, 07 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Authorized signatory Vishal Sehgal AGM (Marketing).
......Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus
1. Prem Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Gupta R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
Respondents/Complainants
3. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 5th Floor, Lodhi Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
4. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Registered Office B- 64, Second Floor, Commercial Complex, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi through its Managing Director, Mrs. Sumit Khanna.
....Respondents/Opposite Party No.1 & 2. M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 2 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
First Appeal against the order dated 30.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT Misc. Application No.2037 of 2017 (Delay) This application has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal, which has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and OPs were directed to make refund of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants within 30 days failing which, they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above said amount from the date of deposit till its realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs.2000/- as litigation costs from the date of receipt of copy of this order.M.A. No. 2037 of 2017
In/and 3 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainants approached OP No.1 at Ludhiana for booking of apartment and deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount with the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 sent booking confirmation letter dated 05.01.2012 to the complainants in which they confirmed the booking of apartment No.D2-201, First Floor in Ansal Meadows at Kullu. However, no allotment letter was issued to the complainants. Complainants approached OP No.3 who told him that OPs No.1 & 2 have not deposited the booking amount with it. Complainants wrote so many letters and issued legal notice to the OPs to issue the allotment letter but all in vain. Hence, the complaint.
Grounds of Application (Delay)
4. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant/opposite party No.3 was wrongly proceeded ex-parte as no notice or summon was ever received by it. The complaint was ultimately allowed vide order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant only came to know about the impugned order when summon from the executing court were served upon it. The appellant immediately moved application before the District M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 4 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 Forum for setting aside the ex-parte order which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, the appellant was not made aware about the order dated 14.12.2015 by its counsel. In the month of July 2017 the applicant received notice from the Collector regarding recovery of amount as per ex-parte order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant immediately obtained certified copy of the impugned order from the District Forum as per rules. The case was prepared and sent for signature to the authorized signatory and thereafter the appeal was filed. The delay was not intentional but was due to bonafide reasons mentioned above. It was prayed that the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Contentions of the Parties
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the contentions on the same line as averred in the application. Consideration of Contentions
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The only explanation given by appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay is that it was wrongly proceeded against ex parte and it came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2015 only when the summons in the M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 5 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 execution application was received. The ex-parte order is dated 30.10.2013. No cogent reasons to explain each day's delay have been given.
9. In ANSHUL AGGARWAL VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTH, there was 233 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if that Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Foras. In that case, the delay was not condoned.
10. In AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RENU III (2014) CPJ 670 (NC), it was found that the delay was caused solely because of the reason that the petitioner, rather than acting diligently, dealt with the case in routine and casual manner; as is the position in the present case. No cause was made out in the application for condoning the delay and the same was not condoned.
11. In KAMLA DEVI SAGU VS. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. III (2014) CPJ 68 (NC), there was 118 days' delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, which was condoned. Hon'ble National Commission did not agree with the condoning that delay, on the ground that the delay was huge and the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite parties were bereft of merit.
M.A. No. 2037 of 2017In/and 6 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
12. From our above discussion, we conclude that the appellant/opposite party No.3 has failed to make sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1426 in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Main Appeal
13. As a result of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is dismissed, as barred by time.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. Respondents No.1 & 2/complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 3, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2037 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No. 682 of 2017 Date of Institution: 26.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017.
M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd., 118 UFF, Prakash Deep, 07 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Authorized signatory Vishal Sehgal AGM (Marketing).
......Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus
1. Prem Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Gupta R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
Respondents/Complainants
3. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 5th Floor, Lodhi Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
4. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Registered Office B- 64, Second Floor, Commercial Complex, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi through its Managing Director, Mrs. Sumit Khanna.
....Respondents/Opposite Party No.1 & 2. M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 2 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
First Appeal against the order dated 30.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT Misc. Application No.2037 of 2017 (Delay) This application has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal, which has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and OPs were directed to make refund of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants within 30 days failing which, they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above said amount from the date of deposit till its realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs.2000/- as litigation costs from the date of receipt of copy of this order.M.A. No. 2037 of 2017
In/and 3 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainants approached OP No.1 at Ludhiana for booking of apartment and deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount with the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 sent booking confirmation letter dated 05.01.2012 to the complainants in which they confirmed the booking of apartment No.D2-201, First Floor in Ansal Meadows at Kullu. However, no allotment letter was issued to the complainants. Complainants approached OP No.3 who told him that OPs No.1 & 2 have not deposited the booking amount with it. Complainants wrote so many letters and issued legal notice to the OPs to issue the allotment letter but all in vain. Hence, the complaint.
Grounds of Application (Delay)
4. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant/opposite party No.3 was wrongly proceeded ex-parte as no notice or summon was ever received by it. The complaint was ultimately allowed vide order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant only came to know about the impugned order when summon from the executing court were served upon it. The appellant immediately moved application before the District M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 4 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 Forum for setting aside the ex-parte order which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, the appellant was not made aware about the order dated 14.12.2015 by its counsel. In the month of July 2017 the applicant received notice from the Collector regarding recovery of amount as per ex-parte order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant immediately obtained certified copy of the impugned order from the District Forum as per rules. The case was prepared and sent for signature to the authorized signatory and thereafter the appeal was filed. The delay was not intentional but was due to bonafide reasons mentioned above. It was prayed that the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Contentions of the Parties
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the contentions on the same line as averred in the application. Consideration of Contentions
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The only explanation given by appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay is that it was wrongly proceeded against ex parte and it came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2015 only when the summons in the M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 5 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 execution application was received. The ex-parte order is dated 30.10.2013. No cogent reasons to explain each day's delay have been given.
9. In ANSHUL AGGARWAL VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTH, there was 233 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if that Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Foras. In that case, the delay was not condoned.
10. In AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RENU III (2014) CPJ 670 (NC), it was found that the delay was caused solely because of the reason that the petitioner, rather than acting diligently, dealt with the case in routine and casual manner; as is the position in the present case. No cause was made out in the application for condoning the delay and the same was not condoned.
11. In KAMLA DEVI SAGU VS. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. III (2014) CPJ 68 (NC), there was 118 days' delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, which was condoned. Hon'ble National Commission did not agree with the condoning that delay, on the ground that the delay was huge and the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite parties were bereft of merit.
M.A. No. 2037 of 2017In/and 6 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
12. From our above discussion, we conclude that the appellant/opposite party No.3 has failed to make sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1426 in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Main Appeal
13. As a result of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is dismissed, as barred by time.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. Respondents No.1 & 2/complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 3, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No.168 of 2017 Date of Institution: 08.03.2017 Date of Decision : 12.10.2017 Ajay Kumar son of Ram Kumar, R/o Bawa Sant Singh Road, near Bijli Wala Khooh, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
......Appellant/Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub-Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondent/Opposite Party First Appeal against the order dated 21.11.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manu Loona, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT In view of the statement of learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant/complainant to approach the competent authority of the Electricity Board for redressal of his grievance.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 12, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2037 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No. 682 of 2017 Date of Institution: 26.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017.
M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd., 118 UFF, Prakash Deep, 07 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Authorized signatory Vishal Sehgal AGM (Marketing).
......Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus
1. Prem Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Gupta R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
Respondents/Complainants
3. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 5th Floor, Lodhi Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
4. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Registered Office B- 64, Second Floor, Commercial Complex, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi through its Managing Director, Mrs. Sumit Khanna.
....Respondents/Opposite Party No.1 & 2. M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 2 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
First Appeal against the order dated 30.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT Misc. Application No.2037 of 2017 (Delay) This application has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal, which has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and OPs were directed to make refund of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants within 30 days failing which, they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above said amount from the date of deposit till its realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs.2000/- as litigation costs from the date of receipt of copy of this order.M.A. No. 2037 of 2017
In/and 3 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainants approached OP No.1 at Ludhiana for booking of apartment and deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount with the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 sent booking confirmation letter dated 05.01.2012 to the complainants in which they confirmed the booking of apartment No.D2-201, First Floor in Ansal Meadows at Kullu. However, no allotment letter was issued to the complainants. Complainants approached OP No.3 who told him that OPs No.1 & 2 have not deposited the booking amount with it. Complainants wrote so many letters and issued legal notice to the OPs to issue the allotment letter but all in vain. Hence, the complaint.
Grounds of Application (Delay)
4. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant/opposite party No.3 was wrongly proceeded ex-parte as no notice or summon was ever received by it. The complaint was ultimately allowed vide order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant only came to know about the impugned order when summon from the executing court were served upon it. The appellant immediately moved application before the District M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 4 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 Forum for setting aside the ex-parte order which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, the appellant was not made aware about the order dated 14.12.2015 by its counsel. In the month of July 2017 the applicant received notice from the Collector regarding recovery of amount as per ex-parte order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant immediately obtained certified copy of the impugned order from the District Forum as per rules. The case was prepared and sent for signature to the authorized signatory and thereafter the appeal was filed. The delay was not intentional but was due to bonafide reasons mentioned above. It was prayed that the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Contentions of the Parties
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the contentions on the same line as averred in the application. Consideration of Contentions
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The only explanation given by appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay is that it was wrongly proceeded against ex parte and it came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2015 only when the summons in the M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 5 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 execution application was received. The ex-parte order is dated 30.10.2013. No cogent reasons to explain each day's delay have been given.
9. In ANSHUL AGGARWAL VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTH, there was 233 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if that Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Foras. In that case, the delay was not condoned.
10. In AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RENU III (2014) CPJ 670 (NC), it was found that the delay was caused solely because of the reason that the petitioner, rather than acting diligently, dealt with the case in routine and casual manner; as is the position in the present case. No cause was made out in the application for condoning the delay and the same was not condoned.
11. In KAMLA DEVI SAGU VS. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. III (2014) CPJ 68 (NC), there was 118 days' delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, which was condoned. Hon'ble National Commission did not agree with the condoning that delay, on the ground that the delay was huge and the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite parties were bereft of merit.
M.A. No. 2037 of 2017In/and 6 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
12. From our above discussion, we conclude that the appellant/opposite party No.3 has failed to make sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1426 in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Main Appeal
13. As a result of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is dismissed, as barred by time.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. Respondents No.1 & 2/complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 3, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No. 2037 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No. 682 of 2017 Date of Institution: 26.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017.
M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd., 118 UFF, Prakash Deep, 07 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Authorized signatory Vishal Sehgal AGM (Marketing).
......Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus
1. Prem Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Gupta R/o 190-E, Kichlu Nagar, Ludhiana.
Respondents/Complainants
3. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 5th Floor, Lodhi Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
4. Unimexx Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Registered Office B- 64, Second Floor, Commercial Complex, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi through its Managing Director, Mrs. Sumit Khanna.
....Respondents/Opposite Party No.1 & 2. M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 2 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
First Appeal against the order dated 30.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT Misc. Application No.2037 of 2017 (Delay) This application has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal, which has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and OPs were directed to make refund of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants within 30 days failing which, they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above said amount from the date of deposit till its realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs.2000/- as litigation costs from the date of receipt of copy of this order.M.A. No. 2037 of 2017
In/and 3 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainants approached OP No.1 at Ludhiana for booking of apartment and deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount with the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 sent booking confirmation letter dated 05.01.2012 to the complainants in which they confirmed the booking of apartment No.D2-201, First Floor in Ansal Meadows at Kullu. However, no allotment letter was issued to the complainants. Complainants approached OP No.3 who told him that OPs No.1 & 2 have not deposited the booking amount with it. Complainants wrote so many letters and issued legal notice to the OPs to issue the allotment letter but all in vain. Hence, the complaint.
Grounds of Application (Delay)
4. The grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant/opposite party No.3 was wrongly proceeded ex-parte as no notice or summon was ever received by it. The complaint was ultimately allowed vide order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant only came to know about the impugned order when summon from the executing court were served upon it. The appellant immediately moved application before the District M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 4 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 Forum for setting aside the ex-parte order which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter, the appellant was not made aware about the order dated 14.12.2015 by its counsel. In the month of July 2017 the applicant received notice from the Collector regarding recovery of amount as per ex-parte order dated 30.10.2013. The appellant immediately obtained certified copy of the impugned order from the District Forum as per rules. The case was prepared and sent for signature to the authorized signatory and thereafter the appeal was filed. The delay was not intentional but was due to bonafide reasons mentioned above. It was prayed that the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Contentions of the Parties
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the contentions on the same line as averred in the application. Consideration of Contentions
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The only explanation given by appellant/opposite party No.3 for condoning the delay is that it was wrongly proceeded against ex parte and it came to know about the passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2015 only when the summons in the M.A. No. 2037 of 2017 In/and 5 F.A. No. 682 of 2017 execution application was received. The ex-parte order is dated 30.10.2013. No cogent reasons to explain each day's delay have been given.
9. In ANSHUL AGGARWAL VS. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTH, there was 233 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if that Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against orders of Consumer Foras. In that case, the delay was not condoned.
10. In AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RENU III (2014) CPJ 670 (NC), it was found that the delay was caused solely because of the reason that the petitioner, rather than acting diligently, dealt with the case in routine and casual manner; as is the position in the present case. No cause was made out in the application for condoning the delay and the same was not condoned.
11. In KAMLA DEVI SAGU VS. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. III (2014) CPJ 68 (NC), there was 118 days' delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission, which was condoned. Hon'ble National Commission did not agree with the condoning that delay, on the ground that the delay was huge and the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite parties were bereft of merit.
M.A. No. 2037 of 2017In/and 6 F.A. No. 682 of 2017
12. From our above discussion, we conclude that the appellant/opposite party No.3 has failed to make sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1426 in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Main Appeal
13. As a result of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is dismissed, as barred by time.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. Respondents No.1 & 2/complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 3, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.64 of 2017 Date of Institution: 08.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2017.
1. M/s Omaxe Limited, Regd. Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
2. M/s Omaxe Limited, Branch Office at Omaxe Plaza Near Bhaiwala Chowk, Ferozepur Road Ludhiana through its Manager/Office Incharge.
......Petitioners/Opposite Parties Versus
1. Rajeev Gupta son of Sh. Sat Pal Gupta son of Lala Hari Ram, resident of House No.1448/2, Bawa Market, Street No.2, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana.
2. Ramesh Kumari wife of Rajeev Gupta son of Lala Hari Ram, resident of House No.1448/2, Bawa Market, Street No.2, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana.
.....Respondents/Complainants Revision against the orders dated 09.08.2017 and 24.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member R.P. No. 64 of 2017 2 Present:-
For the petitioners : Sh. Gaurav Rana, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties (in short "Opposite Parties") against the orders dated 09.08.2017 and 24.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short 'District Forum') whereby the petitioners/opposite parties proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.08.2017 and the application filed by them for setting aside the order dated 09.08.2017 was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.08.2017.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of the Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondents/complainants (in short 'complainants') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that allured by the advertisements issued by the OPs/petitioners, the complainants agreed to purchase shop No.SF-1(I) measuring 855.20 Sq. Feet on second floor of the multiplex of the OPs known as Omaxe Plaza for Rs.49,60,160/- for earning their livelihood by way of self R.P. No. 64 of 2017 3 employment. Complainants paid a sum of Rs.48,33,320/- and allotment letter dated 21.09.2010 was issued in their favour. It was represented that the shop would be rented out/leased out to Kirvy Brand. OPs threatened the complainants to accept the change, additions or alteration of the site shop illegally. Complainants have already filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining opposite parties from making additions, alterations, changes to the site and area of the shop in question. Complainants approached the OPs for execution and registration of sale deed to the said shop in their favour but OPs pressurized the complainants to accept the changed shop. Accordingly, the complainants by way of Consumer Complaint sought the directions to the OPs to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed of the shop in question, to deliver its possession and to pay a compensation and litigation costs.
4. Notices of the complaint were issued to OPs No.1 & 2. But they did not appear before the District Forum despite their service and were proceeded against ex-parte vide impugned order dated 09.08.2017. They filed Misc. Application for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2017 before the District Forum which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2017 on the ground that it is not maintainable as District Forum has no power to review its order. Hence, this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties and perused the record. R.P. No. 64 of 2017 4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on gaining the knowledge of the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, the petitioners/OPs engaged the services of Sh. Sourabh Arora, Advocate in order to appear and pursue the matter on behalf of the petitioners. However, due to inadvertent error, the clerk of the said counsel noted the date for appearing as 10.08.2017 instead of 09.08.2017 due to which the counsel could not appear till lunch time and thereafter when a call was received by him from the office of petitioners to ascertain the next date, the counsel immediately rush to the District Forum but till then the order proceeding them ex-parte has already passed.
On the same day the said counsel moved an application for setting aside the order dated 09.08.2017. But the same was dismissed by the District Forum as it has no power to review its own order, but the liberty was granted to the petitioner to join the proceedings at that stage, which was for leading ex-parte evidence of the complainants. He prayed that the non-appearance of the petitioners when the case was called in the forenoon was unintentional and due to the reason aforesaid and prayed that the aforesaid orders be set aside and they be allowed to file the written statement.
7. We have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. R.P. No. 64 of 2017 5
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand" (1983) 2 SCC 132 has held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
9. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
10. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioners/opposite parties have been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant, if the petitioners/opposite parties are allowed to join the proceedings as the complaint is still at the initial stage.
11. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.08.2017 and 24.08.2017 are set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, on or before the date fixed and Rs.1000/- shall be paid to the R.P. No. 64 of 2017 6 complainants. The petitioners/opposite parties will file written statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 13, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.66 of 2017 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017.
Dr. Dalbir Singh, MBBS, MS Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
......Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Ajit Singh aged about 70 years, son of Waryam Singh, r/o WQ 250, Opposite Chitta School Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant.
2. Dr. Anil Kumar (MD, DM) Cardiologist Oxford Hospital (P) Ltd. 305, Lajpat Nagar, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
Revision against the order dated 16.08.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Viney Puri, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 (in short "Opposite Parties") against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'District Forum') whereby R.P. No. 66 of 2017 2 petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been proceeded against ex- parte.
2. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that we proceed to dispose of this Revision Petition without issuing notice to the complainants as it will cause unnecessarily delay in the early disposal of the complaint and that complaint is still at the initial stage.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent/complainant (in short 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, "the Act") alleging that he went to the OPs for getting some treatment. The complainant has joined the Army and thereafter retired from the same. OPs are empanelled doctors of the Army for providing medical benefits to the Ex-Servicemen. The complainant was suffering from weakness and he went to Army Hospital. Senior Dr. Col. Arijit Kumar Ghosh MD General Medicine DM (Cardiology) Senior Advisor Medicine and Cardiologist of Army Hospital advised him rest and also gave some medicines initially and also referred to Oxford Hospital for 2D Echo Cardiography Test with latest machines and technology. On the next day he visited the Hospital of OP No.1 for 2D Echo Cardiography Test, but the OP No.1 forcibly admitted him in the hospital without his consent. Thereafter, OP No.1 called OP No.2 to install stent in the body of the complainant and OP No.2 along R.P. No. 66 of 2017 3 with the help of OP No.1 and staff members got installed two different stents in the body of the complainant which were not required. The complainant was discharged on 07.04.2017 by issuing file having U.H.I.D. No.88464 dated 07.04.2017. When Col.
Arijit Kumar Ghosh saw treatment related CD he was shocked to note that wrong treatment was given by the OPs. The act of OPs amounted to deficiency in the services provided by them. Thereafter, the complainant preferred the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs before the District Forum.
4. Notice was issued to the OPs. During these proceedings the petitioner/OP No.1 was proceeded against ex- parte. Hence, against the said ex-parte order the petitioner/OP No.1 has approached this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It appears that notice of the complaint was issued to OP No.1 through Class IV employee of the District Forum on 09.08.2017, for effecting service, but no one appeared on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, inspite of service. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. It cannot be treated as a R.P. No. 66 of 2017 4 valid service, because there is no provision of process service in the Act. However, sometimes, service of notice is effected upon the local party, through the staff of the District Forum. An opportunity should have been given to opposite party No.1 by sending a notice, through registered post, which is an accepted and adopted mode of valid service by the Consumer Fora.
8. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that it is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal AIR 2010 SC 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper-technical grounds.
9. In another case Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. Recently, in case Zee Learn Ltd. v. Keshava Murthy D.M. 2017 (1) CPR 658 (NC), the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum and the Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Forum to decide the complaint after taking R.P. No. 66 of 2017 5 written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
11. The sum and substance is that a party who claims to have substantial right, which requires adjudication by the Court of law/Tribunal, should not be denied of the said opportunity by sticking on to hyper-technical objections. It is settled principle of law that cases should be decided on merit and not merely on technical grounds. Rules of procedure are handmade of justice and to do substantial justice.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner/opposite party No.1 has been deprived of its valuable right to defend. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant and he can be compensated for the lapse on the part of petitioner/OP No.1, by way of costs, if ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and allowed to join the proceedings with liberty to file its reply/written statement as the complaint is still at the initial stage for effecting service upon OP No.2.
13. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 is set-aside subject to costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.4,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Forum, Jalandhar on or before the date fixed and Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 will file written R.P. No. 66 of 2017 6 statement/reply within a period of 15 days or same shall be filed on the date already fixed before the District Consumer Forum.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 15, 2017 SK/-