STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                                 Date of Institution: 27.07.2023

                      Date of final hearing: 02.08.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 02.08.2023

Revision Petition No.66 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, 8^th Floor, Plot C-12, Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 Through its Branch Manger

                                                                                      .….Petitioner.

Through counsel Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate

Versus

1.      Runa Devi, W/o Bindu Sahani R/o House No. 105, Ward No.23, Vijay Colony, Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Ummeed Housing Finance Private Limited, SCO 172, GF, Sector-17, Huda, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its managing Director.

                                                                                                 ….Respondents

CORAM:   S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.

Present:-    Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for the petitioner.

O R D E R

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 12 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 13.04.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2023, passed by the learned district consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rohit Goswami 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. Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that on receipt of the summon the petitioner-opposite party No.1 had appointed an advocate to appear and defend the case on his behalf and petitioner-opposite party No.1 also provided to his advocate Vakalatnama along with written statement to be filled before the district commission. But inadvertently, learned counsel for petitioner-opposite party No.1 noted down the wrong date for appearance as 21.04.2023 instead of 13.04.2023 and could not appear before the learned District Commission on 13.04.2023. It has further argued that on 21.04.2023 when learned counsel for petitioner-opposite party No.1 has checked the cause list he was surprised to note that the case was not listed in the cause list. Thereafter, when the counsel checked that status of the case, he found that the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 was already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2023 before the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Thereafter, an application was also filed before the learned District Commission for setting aside the order dated 13.04.2023, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2023. He further argued that non-appearance of present petitioner-OP No.1 before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that order dated 13.04.2023, passed by learned District Commission may 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 petitioner-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 petitioners-OPs is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned district commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 13.04.2023, passed by learned district commission, Yamuna Nagar, 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.3,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner- OP No.1 to the complainant before learned district commission, Yamuna Nagar. 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- OP No.1 is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar on 29.08.2023 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 02^nd August, 2023                                                        S.P. Sood                                                                                                                                         Judicial Member    

J.Y.                                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-1