Haryana

StateCommission

RP/57/2020

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAVIN MEHTA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

MAHESH DHEER

23 Nov 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No:   57 of 2020

Date of Institution:       11.11.2020

Date of Decision:        23.11.2020

 

 

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), situated at Commercial Urban Estate -1, Red Cross Market, Hisar, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

                                      ……Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Pravin Mehta son of Sadanand Mehta, resident of House No.385, Sector 15A, Hisar.

…Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Hisar via its Manager, 57/60, Kamla Nagar, Hisar near ICICI Bank.

 

3.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9C, Chandigarh via Regional Manager.

 

4.      Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, Mini Secretariat, Hisar.

 

5.      Block Agricultural Officer, Hisar.

…Respondents No.2 to 5-Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member                   

 

 

Present:     Shri Mahesh Dheer, counsel for the petitioner. 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          Union Bank of India-opposite party No.3 has challenged the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte in the complaint titled ‘Pravin Mehta Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and Others’.  It has also challenged the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Commission whereby revision filed on its behalf for challenging the order dated 06.02.2020 was dismissed.

2.      The petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte in the aforementioned complaint as on 06.02.2020 it did not put in appearance despite the fact that after issuance of notice a period of 30 days had expired but the notice was not received back either served or otherwise nor there was any representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3.      Aggrieved of the order dated 06.02.2020, the petitioner filed an application but the said application was also dismissed on the ground that the District Consumer Commission had no jurisdiction to revise its own order.

4.      According to the petitioner, it could not put in appearance before the District Consumer Commission as the notice issued for its appearance was not served upon the petitioner.  It also filed an application through its counsel for its setting aside but it met the same fate. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is granted, the petitioner shall put in appearance before the District Consumer Commission and file its written version.  It is also submitted that the complaint is still at the preliminary stage of filing of written version by the other opposite parties for which purpose the complaint stands adjourned to 26.11.2020. 

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the interest of justice, the State Consumer Commission is of the view that ends of justice shall be suitably met if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity for putting in appearance and filing the written version.

6.      Resultantly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity for putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission and filing its written version.  The petitioner shall appear before the District Consumer Commission on 26.11.2020 and file its written version. The order is, however, subject to costs of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission, which shall be disbursed to the complainant.

7.      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.  

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Consumer Commission.

 

 

 

 

Announced 23.11.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK