Haryana

StateCommission

RP/35/2020

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KEHAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

JASBIR SINGH

15 Sep 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.35   of 2020

 Date of Institution:12.03.2020

  Date  of  Decision:15.09.2020

 

1.      UHBVNL Jundla, Tehsil & Distt. Karnal, through Sarvesh Kumar, SDO (Operation).

2.      M.D. UHBVNL, Haryana, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

Kehar Singh S/o Dalip Singh, r/o village Dadupar Roran, Tehsil & Distt. Karnal.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Nonish Kumar Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

            Due to lockdown in the State of Haryana, the matter could not be taken up on 24.03.2020 and  07.07.2020         .   On 07.07.2020, the revision petition was adjourned to 15.09.2020  for the same purpose as per the official order of the Hon’ble President.  Today, the matter has been heard through virtual hearing.

2.      Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  20.11.2019 and 05.02.2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal vide which  O.Ps were  proceeded ex parte.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Nonish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

4.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Nonish Kumar, the learned counsel for the revisionists that petitioners inadvertently could not appear on 20.11.2019. The non-appearance of the O.Ps. were neither intentional, even the case was at initial stage for service of O.Ps.    Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that they filed application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was also dismissed on 05.02.2020. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 20.11.2019 and order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the District Commission may kindly be set aside .

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against O.Ps., but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.Ps. are afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceeding dated 20.11.2019 and 05.02.2020 initiated against  O.Ps-petitioners are set aside subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned district Commission on 22.09.2020 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

7.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting 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 judgement 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.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

15th  September, 2020      Manjula,                                Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                     Member                                 Judicial Member    

S.K.