Punjab

StateCommission

RP/25/2023

M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNEET KUMAR AND LEELA DHAR

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

         

M.A. No.486 & I.A. No.202 of 2023

In/and

Revision Petition No.25 of 2023

Date of institution   :  12.04.2023 

Date of Decision     :  18.04.2023

 

1. M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited having its Regd. Office at Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backway Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. 
2. The Branch Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 114-115, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, above Domino Pizza, New Leela Bhawan Market Patiala – 147001 (Punjab). 

Both the petitioners are being represented through its authorized person/attorney Aditya Kochar, Deputy Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Regional Office at SCO No.153-155, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.    

….Revisionists/Opposite Parties No.1&2

Versus

1. Darshan Singh aged 54 years and s/o Jagga Singh, R/o H.No.33, New Kartar Colony, Patiala-147001.        

…..Respondent No.1/complainant

2. The Branch manager, HDFC Lite Insurance Company Limited, SCO 114-115, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, above Domino Pizza, New Leela Bhawan Market Patiala – 147001 (Punjab). 
3. The Branch Manger ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, JTS Real Estate, Shop No.3 114-115, 1^st Floor, Bhupindra Road, Near Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala – 147001 (Punjab)

…..Respondents No.2&3/Opposite Parties No.2&3

 

Revision Petition against the orders dated 10.08.2021 & 06.12.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala. 

Quorum:-

                    Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member

                   Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member    

Present:-

         For the revisionists      :         Sh. Suneet Kumar, Advocate

 

H.P.S. MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          The present Revision Petition has been filed by the revisionists/OPs No.1&2 challenging the orders dated 10.08.2021 and 06.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala, (in short “District Commission”) whereby the revisionists were proceeded against ex parte and application filed by revisionists for setting aside the order dated 10.08.2021 was dismissed, respectively. 

M.A. No.486 of 2023 (for condonation of delay)

2.                This application has been filed by revisionists for condonation of delay of 484 days in filing the appeal. 

3.                Learned counsel for applicants/revisionists states that there is only 37 days delay in filing the appeal, as applicants/revisionists were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 10.08.2021, thereafter, applicants/revisionists moved application for setting aside the ex parte said order dated 10.08.2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2022 and as per latter order the delay comes to only 37 days.   

4.                In view of above submissions and reasons recorded in the application, delay of 37 days is condoned, subject to cost of Rs.1,850/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of the District Commission. 

Main case      

                   Heard.

5.                Learned counsel for the revisionists states that after receiving the summons, revisionists immediately prepared the reply with annexure and sent the same to the its Regional Office, Chandigarh, thereafter the same was forwarded to local counsel at Patiala to file the same on or before 10.08.2021, but unfortunately, the local counsel due to fever confined himself at home, as precautionary measure in prevailing COVID-19 and resultantly, revisionists could not appear before the District Commission and District Commission proceeded them ex parte. Immediately on coming to know about the ex parte order, they moved application for setting aside the ex parte order, but the same was dismissed on 06.12.2022.  He further states that the absence of the revisionists before the District Commission is not intentional and is bona fide. 

6.      We have heard learned counsel for revisionists and gone through the record of the case.  The plea taken by learned counsel for revisionists is quite plausible showing that non-appearance of the revisionist was a bona fide one and is not intentional.   Nevertheless, the law is very clear on this point that endeavour should be put in, by the Court to hear the parties on merits of the case, instead of continuing the ex parte proceedings.  As such, this Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 10.08.2021 and 06.12.2022 are set aside, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of concerned District Commission.  The case is remanded back to District Commission, Patiala, and the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 19.05.2023 with the direction to revisionists to file written reply, on or before 19.05.2023.  The deposit of the costs of Rs.1,850/- & Rs.5,000/-, as stated above, will be condition precedent, which are to be deposited on or before 19.05.2023, failing which this Revision Petition would be deemed to be dismissed. 

7.                Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.  

8.                Registry is directed to immediately send the certified copy of the order to the District Commission.

 

                                                              (H.P.S. MAHAL)

                                                  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

     (KIRAN SIBAL)

                                                                  MEMBER

April 18^th, 2023                                            

DB