Haryana

StateCommission

RP/11/2020

M/S SHIV PLYWOOD TRADERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANAND SINGH KADIAN AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

LEKH RAJ NANDAL

31 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:23.01.2020

                Date of final hearing:31.08.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 03.01.2023

 

Revision Petition No.11 of 2020

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Shiv Plywood Traders, Sheela Bypass Chowk, Sonipat Road, Rohtak through its proprietor Shri Aman Batra.

                                                                                      .….Petitioner

Through counsel Mr. L.R. Nandal, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.    Anand Singh Kadian son of Shri Kartar Singh, R/o House No.P-20, Panchwati Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.

….Respondent No.1.

Mr. A.S. Kadian, respondent No1 in person

2.    Ganpati Wood Products, Village-Tajakpur, P.O Pansara, Yamunanagar-135001.

….Respondent No.2 (Proforma Respondent).

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. L.R. Nandal, counsel for the petitioner.

                   Mr. A.S. Kadian, respondent No.1 in person.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

                    Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  23.10.2019 in Consumer Complaint No.149 of 2018, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak, vide which the application for additional evidence of complainant was allowed and documents Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P13 were taken on record by way of additional evidence.

2.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. L.R. Nandal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by Shri A.S. Kadian, respondent No.1 in person. With their kind assistance the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined. Respondent No.2 is only a Proforma respondent and no relief is claimed against it.

3.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. L.R. Nandal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss in case the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 is not set-aside. He further argued that the consumer complaint No.149 of 2018 was filed by the complainant-respondent No.1 before learned District Commission seeking payment of Rs.1,68,617/- along with interest of 18%  and an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses from the present petitioner-OP No.2. After notice of the abovementioned complaint to Ops, latter appeared and filed their reply before learned District Commission. Thereafter, on 13.02.2019, complainant tendered his evidence and closed the same. Similarly, on 20.03.2019, OP No.1 tendered its evidence and also closed the same and on 03.06.2019, OP No.2 also concluded its evidence. On 19.09.2019, final arguments were heard by learned District Commission and thereafter, on 23.10.2019, complainant moved an application for additional evidence, which of course was totally misuse of process of law and despite it being a settled proposition of law that when the party has closed its evidence voluntarily and arguments have been heard, no application regarding additional evidence could be taken into consideration and allowed rather the same deserves to be dismissed. However, the abovementioned application was allowed on the same day, when it was filed even without affording any opportunity to file its reply by the present revisionist. Therefore, the order dated 23.10.2019 be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed.

4.                On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kadian, respondent No.1-complainant, who appeared in person before this Commission, has argued that he filed the Consumer Complaint No.149 of 2018 before learned District Commission, Rohtak. Upon notice, Ops had appeared and filed their written version. Complaint was posted for recording evidence of complainant on 13.02.2019 and thereafter, on 20.03.2019 and 03.06.2019, Ops also tendered their evidence. He further argued that 13.09.2019 arguments were heard in part and complaint was adjourned for 19.09.2019 for remaining arguments and before passing the final order by learned District Commission, complainant had moved an application for placing on record additional evidence, which was allowed by learned District Commission vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019. He further argued that the present petitioner will not suffer any loss much-less irreparable by allowing that application. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance upon authority of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.686 of 2014, titled as “Kehar Singh Kang Vs. Blue Stallion Equipments Pvt. Ltd.” wherein it has been held that :-

“either of the parties are entitled to produce additional evidence in the Appeal and/or Revision Petition of at any stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not in its knowledge and could not, even after exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the Consumer Complaint was decided.”

He further placed reliance upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2019, titled as “Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. Vs. M/s Tejas Co-operative Housing Society” wherein it has been held that :-

“We have perused the application filed by the appellants herein for bringing additional evidence on record, alongwith the documents sought to be produced in the pending Appeal before the State Commission. These documents have admittedly come into existence after the Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The Appellants therefore, could not have produced the said documents before the District Forum. 3.2. Under order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.1.3.3. These documents are of relevance to establish that the Appellants are not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the MCGM until the unauthorized structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, re removed. In the absence of these documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to 1 A. Andisamy Chettiar  v.A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713. substantiate their case that they are unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum.”

He further argued that, learned District Commission rightly passed the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 and prayed for dismissal of the present revision petition.

5.                We see that the District Commission is a Tribunal which can well said to be a quasi judicial body based on facts and law which of course is to decide summarily. We do not see any reason for the revisionist to slam the door for documentary evidence led by respondent/complainant. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that the application filed by the complainant for placing on record he documents Ex.PW1/B and Ex.P13 by way of additional evidence was allowed by learned District Commission vide order dated 23.10.2019. Present petitioner-OP No.2 is not going to suffer any irreparable loss by allowing the abovementioned application. Moreover, the cases replied upon by the respondent No.1 titled Kehar Singh Kang (Supra) and titled Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. (Supra) are relevant because the facts and circumstances of those cases are similar to the case in hand. Hence, the present revision petition stands dismissed and order dated 23.10.2019, passed by learned District Commission, Rohtak is well established, according to law and no need to interfere with it.

6.                Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Commission, Rohtak.

7.                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.

8.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 03^rd January, 2023                                                                                                                                                                                          S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench            

 

         

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench