Haryana

StateCommission

RP/28/2020

M/S ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH BUNGER

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:25.02.2020

                Date of final hearing:19.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 27.04.2023

 

Revision Petition No.28 of 2020

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd., Golf View Corporate Towers, Sector-42, Golf Course Road, Gurugram-122002 [erstwhile M/s Alpha G: Corp. Development Pvt. Ltd. Having its registered office at 806, Meghdoot, 94, Nehru Place, New Delhi-11]

                                                                                      .….Petitioner

Through counsel Mr. Bahul Bungar, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.    Dr. Raj Kumar son of Late Shri Priyatam Singh, R/o 39, Ranjit Enclave (Ashoka Nursery), Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

….Respondent No.1

Appeared in person

2.      The Manager, Alpha G: Corp, Development Pvt. Ltd. (Alpha International City), Karnal.

….Respondent No.2(Proforma respondent)

(Service dispensed with)

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Bahul Bunger, counsel for petitioner.

                   None for respondent No.1.

                   Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 17^th January, 2023.

 

O R D E R

S. C. Kaushik, Member:

           

                   Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  03.02.2020 in Consumer Complaint No.700 of 2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now ‘District Commission’), Karnal, vide which application filed by the opposite party No.2 (‘OP No.2’)-present petitioner for dismissal of the complaint was dismissed and defense of Ops-present petitioner was struck off on account of non-filing of reply.

3.                The arguments were advanced by Mr. Bahul Bunger, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his kind assistance contests of the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined.

4.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. Bahul Bunger, learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant-respondent No.1 had filed a complaint bearing No.700 of 2019 before learned District Commission, Karnal. He further argued that abovementioned complaint was presented before learned District Commission and upon notice, present petitioner appeared there on 02.12.2019 and matter was adjourned for 19.12.2019 for filing written statement. Thereafter, on request of present petitioner, the matter was adjourned for 14.01.2020 and 03.02.2020 for the same purpose. On 03.02.2020, present petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the complaint, but said application was dismissed by learned District Commission with costs of Rs.5,000/- and defense of present petitioner was also struck off. He further argued that the said application was filed for dismissal of the complaint on ground of limitation, as per law to save the expensive time of Hon’ble Court from unwanted litigation. He further argued that impugned order dated 03.02.2020 may be set aside and present revision petition may please be allowed.

5.                In view of the above submissions and on a careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that the OP-present petitioner filed an application before learned District Commission for dismissal of the complaint, which was dismissed. Apart from this, defense of present petitioner was also struck off and costs of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed. From the perusal of record, it reveals that present petitioner-Ops had availed four effective opportunities for filing its written version, but instead of filing written version OP filed an application for dismissal of the complaint, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the present petitioner-OP is afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 03.02.2020, passed by learned District Commission, Karnal is hereby set-aside to extent that present petitioner-OP should be afforded an opportunity to file its written reply before learned District Commission. However, learned District Commission righty dismissed the application for dismissal of complaint, filed by present petitioner-OP. Present revision petition is therefore, partly allowed. Let, the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file its reply and to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.

6.                The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Karnal on 17.05.2023 for further proceedings.

7.                Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Commission, Karnal.

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 27^th April, 2023                                                                                                            

       S.C. Kaushik

Member

         Addl. Bench   

                       

 

R.K.