Haryana

StateCommission

RP/87/2019

NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANDEEP SHARMA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

DIWAN S ADLAKHA

11 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No :  87 of 2019

Date of Institution:       16.10.2019

Date of Decision :        11.11.2019

 

 

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., Survey No.69, Kandalkoya, Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Manchal Malkajgiri, District Telangana-501401, through its Director/Authorized Person.

 

                                      …..Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Mandeep Sharma son of Shri Krishan, resident of Village Bhangarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani (Haryana).

 

…..Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Haryana Agro Sales Corporation, SCF-26, Mandi Township, New Grain Market, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

3.      Seed Works International Pvt. Ltd. Survey No.530/A, Gowdavally Village Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana-5014030.

 

…..Respondents No.2 & 3-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.                          

 

 

Present:               Shri Diwan S. Adlakha, counsel for the petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          The petitioner, who is opposite party No.3 in the complaint titled as ‘Mandeep Sharma Versus Haryana Agro Sales Corporation and Others’ has filed the instant revision for challenging the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, whereby, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

2.      A perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 03.06.2019, opposite party No.1 put in appearance before the learned District Forum and filed the Power of Attorney. Further, despite the complaint being taken up several times during the course of the day on 03.06.2019, none appeared for opposite parties No.2 and 3. A period of 30 days had expired since issuance of the notice and the notice was not received back delivered. Accordingly, it being a case of presumed service and further wait of opposite party No.3 was not justified, the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

3.      According to the petitioner, it never received any notice or information about the case. Only on 20.09.2019, opposite party No.1 informed the petitioner about the pendency of the complaint and about non-appearance of anybody on its behalf. The petitioner immediately enquired about the matter and came to know that the case was listed on 03.06.2019 and it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte due to non-appearance. It is further submitted that the complaint now stands adjourned to 28.11.2019 for recording evidence of the complainant. It is submitted that the impugned order is wrong and against the well settled principles of law especially when the petitioner had not received any notice or information of the case. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to join the proceedings, it will not be in a position to defend itself in the complaint.

4.      Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner but keeping in view the interest of justice, it will be just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to put in appearance before the learned District Forum.

5.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings and file the written version. The order shall however be subject to costs of `10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant on 28.11.2019 at the time of putting in appearance before the learned District Forum and filing the written version.  

6.      This revision petition is being 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 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 learned District Forum and also supplied to the petitioner.

 

 

 

Announced 11.11.2019

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

DR