STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:20.06.2023
Date of final hearing:05.07.2023
Date of pronouncement: 05.07.2023
Revision Petition No.54 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
The New India Assurance Company Limited, NH-5 NR, Badhshah Khan Chownk, NIT Faridabad, Through Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its duly Authorized Officer.
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
Versus
1. Satish S/o Shri Prem Chand Sharma, R/o Village Bhawana, PO CRPF Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Rakesh Vashishtha, S/o Shri Ram Singh Sharma, R/o House No. 364, Rakesh Bhawan, Behind Puran Market, Ward No.20, Near Dadri Gas Agency, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana.
….Respondents
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 15.05.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2023, passed by the learned district consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vinod Gupta, 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. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that notice of the complaint was issued for 10.04.2023 and on 10.04.2023 the report was given that notice issued to the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 not received back either served or unserved but the track consignment report show that notice upon present petitioner-opposite party No.1 was duly delivered but none has appeared on behalf of present petition-OP No.1 on 10.04.2023, however, learned counsel for the present petitioner-OP No.1 argued that he has not received any summons through any responsible person or in receiving branch. The complaint was fixed for 15.05.2023 before learned District Commission, Panchkula but learned counsel for present petitioner-OP No.1 could not appear before the learned District Commission, due to certain unavoidable circumstances and thereafter learnt from the colleague Advocate that the petitioner-OP No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte on 15.05.2023. 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 15.05.2023, 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 15.05.2023, passed by learned district commission, Panchkula, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against present petitioner- OP is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to depositing of Rs.5,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner-OP No.1 to the complainant before learned district commission, Panchkula. 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, Panchkula on 18.08.2023 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 05th July, 2023 S.P. Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench-1
