STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 02.05.2022
Date of final hearing:10.08.2022
Date of Pronouncement:10.08.2022
Revision Petition No.23 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF
Havells India Limited, QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Noida-201304, through its authorized signatory.
…..Petitioner
Versus
1. Amit Bansal son of Shri Bhisham Dev Bansal, Residnt of # 103-A, Gate No.2, Shiv Puri Society, Opposite Saraswati Vidhya Mandir School, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (Complainant).
2. M/s Krishna Electric & General Store, Chowk Bazar, Jagadhri through its Partner/ Proprietor (Opposite party No.1.)
…..Respondents
CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Present:- Mr. Akhil Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 24.02.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.210 of 2020, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, titled as “Amit Bansal Vs. Krishna Electric & Anr.” vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ex-parte order dated 17.10.2021 was dismissed.
2. The argument has been advanced by Mr. Akhil Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the revision petition had been properly perused and examined.
3. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Akhil Bhasin, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned complaint is pending before learned District Commission and was fixed on 17.11.2021, but learned counsel for petitioner did not appeared before learned District Commission due to pandemic situation of Covid-19. Learned counsel for petitioner was also not aware that the District Commission was working on said date as the same was non-functional on various dates due to Covid-19. It is further argued that learned District Commission vide its order dated 17.11.2021, initiated ex-parte proceedings against the present petitioner by ignoring the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had extended the period of limitation to all proceedings irrespective of the limitation period prescribed under the general or special laws whether condonable or not till 28.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before learned District Commission against the ex-parte order dated 17.11.2021 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2022. It is further argued that non appearance before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that order dated 24.02.2022 may be set-aside and present revision petition may be allowed.
4. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated against opposite party No.2 (present revisinist), 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 revisionist-opposite party No.2 is afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 17.11.2021 and 24.02.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against opposite party No.2-petitioner and thereafter application under Section-40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ex-parte proceedings was dismissed, are set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to the condition that present revisionist shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only) as of costs to the complainant before learned District Commission. Let, the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.
5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 04.10.2022 for further proceedings.
6. 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 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.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
10th August, 2022 S.C. Kaushik S. P. Sood Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K.
