H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Rev. Pet. No. 05/2009.

Date of Decision 19.5.2009.

1. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.

through its Manager, SCO 23-24-25, 3rd Floor, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh.,



2. Local Head Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. Shubham

Credits, First Floor Estate, Near LIC Office, The Mall, Solan, HP.

……..Petitioners.

Versus



Yashwant Shobta son of Shri Sher Singh Shobta resident of

village and Post Office Baghi, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, HP.

…….Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Petitioners. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.



For the Respondent. Ms. Priti Thakur, Advocate vice

Mr. Jagat Singh Shyam, Advocate.



O R D E R:







Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



This revision is directed against the order dated 13/10/2008 passed by District Forum Shimla.

2. Facts as they emerge from the complaint file are, that on 13.10.2008 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, they were set ex-parte and case was ordered to be listed for ex parte evidence on 22.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered against his clients on 13.10.2008 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filling the same was presented before the District Forum below, but it was not entertained and he was verbally informed that these applications were not maintainable. Application having been presented, but was not entertained was not disputed on behalf of the respondent. In this background Mr. Sharma submitted that District Forum below erred in not entertaining the applications filed by him. These applications in original are filed as Annexure A-2 collectively.

3. In our opinion District Forum below was in error when it did not entertain the applications Annexure A-2 with this appeal. Whether these were maintainable or not, was the question to be determined by the District Forum below after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

4. At this stage learned counsel for the respondent stated that the pendency of this revision or a direction to the District Forum below to entertain the applications Annexure A-2 and then dispose of those is not in the interest of her client, as it will unnecessarily prolong and delay the matter. As such she stated at the bar that while allowing this revision petition she has instructions to state that the order whereby the petitioners were set ex parte may also be set aside and they may be allowed to file reply to the complaint and then contest the same in accordance with law. She however hastened to add that this may be allowed subject to payment of exemplary cost.

5. After having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that not by taking on record the applications the District Forum below committed grave error. We are further of the view that after having entertained Annexure A-2, District Forum below should have dealt with those applications in accordance with law. In addition to this case is still in its infancy. In these circumstances, in our opinion and with a view to cut short the matter, it is desirable as well as in the interest of justice, that the petitioners may be permitted to file their reply to the complaint and then contest the same in accordance with law by setting aside the order whereby they were set ex parte on 13.10.2008, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost. Ordered accordingly.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that 50% out of this amount may be ordered to be paid to her client and the balance 50% may be ordered to be apportioned equally towards the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission and the rest be ordered to be paid to the Consumer Courts Bar Association, Shimla for purchase of books. This submission made on behalf of the respondent is accepted and it is ordered accordingly.

7. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 13.10.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside, subject to payment of cost as detailed hereinabove. Petitioners shall now file their reply to the complaint on the date already fixed before the District Forum below, i.e., on 8.6.2009 and at the same time shall produce the proof of having deposited Rs. 2500/- as above and will further tender similar amount before the Distt Forum below to be paid to respondent No.1. Shri Yashwant Shobta. In case either reply to the complaint is not filed and or proof of deposit as well as the amount is not tendered, this revision petition shall stand dismissed. Revision petition is disposed of in these terms.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules, and at the same time office is directed to send the same to the District Forum below for compliance.



Shimla.

19th May, 2009. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

Karan* President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.