STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 27.04.2023
Date of final hearing: 06.07.2023
Date of pronouncement: 06.07.2023
Revision Petition No.42 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Joshi Auto Links Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.389, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109, through its Proprietor.
Now situated at Plot No.319, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, through its Authorized Person and Service Advisor, Shri Jaswinder Singh.
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate
Versus
1. Indu Bala W/o Shri Sajjan Kumar, R/o Village Gillakhera (Dhani Sirsa Road) Tehsil and District Fatehabad (Haryana).
2. Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No. A-1, Sector-40-41, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201306, through its Managing Director.
….Respondents
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Verma, counsel for the petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 230 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.
2. Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 10.06.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.104 of 2022, passed by the learned district consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehabad, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rajesh Verma Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that notice of the complaint was issued on 06.05.2022 and the notice was delivered on 11.05.2022 and 12.05.2022 and the track consignment report show that notice upon present petitioner-opposite party No.1 was duly delivered but none was appeared on behalf of present petition-OP No.1 and on the basis of this presumption learned District Commission proceed ex-parte proceedings against present petitioner-OP No.1. Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for the present petitioner-OP No.1 has further argued that he has not received any notice, which is shown in the tracking report. He also stated that the present petitioner-OP No.1 had already shifted from the premises on which address the notice was sent. It was only on 01.04.2023 that the notice sent by learned District Commission was received by the occupier of the building to the official of the present petitioner-OP No.1. Immediately on receiving notice, present petitioner-OP No.1 contacted with the counsel on 10.04.2022 along with the relevant documents, but on checking from the website, it present petitioner-OP No.1 came to know that the petitioner-OP No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte on 10.06.2022. Thus, learned counsel for present petitioner-OP No.1 could not appear before the learned District Commission, due to certain unavoidable circumstances. He further argued that non-appearance of present petitioner-OP No.1 before the learned district commission was neither intentional nor willful rather it was for some reasons beyond his control and further prayed that order dated 10.06.2022 passed by learned district commission may please be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed.
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated before learned district commission against the present petition-OP No.1, 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 No.1 is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned district commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned district commission, Fatehabad, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against present petitioner- OP No.1 is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to depositing of Rs.2,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner-OP No.1 to the complainant before learned district commission, Fatehabad. Let, the present petitioner-OP No.1 be afforded an opportunity to appear before learned District Commission and to file its reply as well as to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.
6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Fatehabad on 11.07.2023 for further proceedings.
7. This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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, 2002.
8. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. 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.
10. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 06th July, 2023 S.P. Sood Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-1
