Haryana

StateCommission

RP/37/2019

TATA MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALKAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SHIV KUMAR

10 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No :  37 of 2019

Date of Institution:        25.04.2019

Date of Decision :        10.05.2019

 

 

 

1.      Tata Motors Limited, SCO 634, 65, 66, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Head/General Manager.

 

2.      Tata Motors through its Managing Director, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82, Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

Versus

 

1.      Balkar Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of Village Farsh Majra, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Kalair Motors, 2^nd Miles Stone, near RKM Farm, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its proprietor/partner.

 

3.      The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

 

4.      Allahabad Bank, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

 

5.      Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Sube Singh, resident of Village Taragarh, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 to 6

 

                                   

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Ms. Manjula, Member                   

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate for petitioners.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          The revisionists/petitioners, who are opposite parties No.2 and 3 in the complaint titled “Balkar Singh Vs. Kalair Motors and Others” have filed the instant revision for challenging the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Kaithal whereby they were ordered to be proceeded against the ex parte.

2.      A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though the petitioners stood duly served in the complaint but did not appear before the learned District Forum despite repeated calls and as no further wait was justified, the impugned order was passed whereby they were proceeded against the ex parte.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners stood duly served for 01.04.2019 but the learned counsel whom they had engaged inadvertently noted the date as 08.04.2019 instead of 01.04.2019 and as such, he could not appear before the learned District Forum on 01.04.2019.  The absence of the petitioners was unintentional.  The written version which they have to file is ready and in case one more opportunity is granted, the petitioners shall put in appearance before the learned District Forum and file the written version.

4.      Be that as it may but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners did not put in appearance before the learned District Forum on 01.04.2019 on account of wrong date having been noted by their counsel, it would be just and proper for granting another opportunity to the petitioners to put in appearance before the learned District Forum on the date now fixed i.e. 17.05.2019 and file their written version.

5.      Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted; impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Kaithal to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioners, who are opposite parties No.2 and 3 in the complaint titled “Balkar Singh Vs. Kalair Motors and Others” is set aside and they are granted one more opportunity for putting in appearance before the learned District Forum and also for filing the written version on 17.05.2019. This order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to complainant Balkar Singh on 17.05.2019 while putting in appearance before the learned District Forum. The petitioners shall also be entitled to file their written version.

6.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.  In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala  Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative versus Presiding Officer,  Labour Court,  Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.          

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

 

 

Announced 10.05.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK