Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/40/2024

M/S SRAATHREE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ KUMAR GAUR

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/40/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	30/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	22/08/2024

 

 

 

 

 

1.   M/s Srathree Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor), Resident of Plot No. 390, Vikas Nagar Mouli Jagran, Chandigarh – 160102, through its Director Sh.Amit Kumar and 2^nd Address:- Plot No.29, Vaishali Enclave, Phase-I, Baltana, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab.

 

2.   Shri Amit Kumar, Director, M/s Srathree Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor), Resident of Plot No.29, Vaishali Enclave, Phase-I, Baltana, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab

 

3.   Mohd. Usman, Authorized Person, M/s Srathree Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Resident of Plot No. 390, Vikas Nagar Mouli Jagran, Chandigarh – 160102.

 

…… Petitioners

 

V E R S U S

 

Arun Goyal son of Sh. Rattan Lal, Resident of House No.771, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Nishant, Advocate proxy for Sh. Manoj Kumar Gaur, Advocate for the Petitioners. Sh. Sourav Duvedi, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.     This Revision Petition is filed by M/s Srathree Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Petitioners”) against the order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 467 of 2023, whereby the Petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 

 

The Petitioners/OPs No.1 to 3 by way of present Revision Petition, have precisely prayed for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission and to afford an opportunity to them to contest the case on merits.

 

 

2.     The only issue in this Revision Petition relates to initiation of ex-parte proceedings by the Ld. Lower Commission against Petitioners/ OPs No.1 to 3 on their failure to appear despite due service, thereby closing the right of the Petitioners/OPs No.1 to 3 to file written version. The merits of this case, therefore, need not be discussed.

 

3.     Pursuant to notice, Sh. Sourav Duvedi, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of Respondent by filing her Vakalatnama and contested the revision petition with vehemence.

 

4.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and carefully gone through the record with utmost care and circumspection.  

 

5.     The key controversy swirls around the short question, “whether this Commission has the power to set aside an ex-parte order passed by the District Commission”?

 

6.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the negative.

 

7.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioner No.2 could not appear before the Ld. District Commission on the date fixed due to an emergency at his native place in Bihar and further, the Petitioner No.3 who is the employee of Petitioner No.2 did not receive the summons. Even the counsel for the Petitioners was out of station in order to attend another case and due to this reason he also could not appear before the Ld. District Commission and subsequently the Petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.11.2023. It has been argued that the Petitioners are very much interested to contest the Complaint and if the impugned order is not set-aside the Petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss.

 

8.     However, per material available on record, we do not find any water in the submissions made hereinabove by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/ OPs. Record of the Ld. District Commission shows that notice of the Consumer Complaint was issued to the Opposite Parties on 03.10.2023 returnable for 23.11.2023 and delivery of notice sent to Opposite Parties through speed post had been confirmed as per track consignment report on 14.10.2023, but none turned up despite service on their behalf therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 23.11.2023. This shows clear negligence on the part of the Petitioners/OPs to proceed with the matter. To our mind, the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his/her instance. There was thus sheer lack of vigilance on the part of the Petitioners/OPs in conducting proceedings before the Ld. District Commission. 

 

9.     According to section 38(3)(b)(ii) of the Act, the District Commissions are empowered to proceed with a case ex-parte if the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Commission. It has been settled by a catena of judgments that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions do not have the power to set aside the ex-parte orders passed by them. Since service through speed post is a proper service, it cannot remotely be said that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is against the principles of natural justice, as due opportunity was granted to the Petitioners to place and prove their case before passing the order dated 23.11.2023.

 

10.     Pertinently, the scope of Revision under the Act is noteworthy. Even though the word ‘revision’ is not used under the Act, Section 47(1)(b) empowers the State Commission to call for records and pass orders in dispute before the District Commission if it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  When the Ld. District Commission proceeded Petitioners/ Opposite Parties ex-parte on their failure to appear despite service of notice, it executes the intent of law. It has thus borne on record that the Ld. District Commission after due consideration and appreciation of the entire documentary evidence available on record passed the order under revision and in the order dated 23.11.2023 there was neither any error nor mistake but a quasi judicial decision taken based upon facts and law. Therefore, there is no exceeding exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. In such a case, the interference of the State Commission is not warranted.

 

11.     It is thus safe to deduce that Revision Petition against an ex-parte order of Ld. Lower Commission is not maintainable before this Commission in light of the language and objective of the Act. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

12.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

13.     The Petitioners/OPs No.1 to 3 are granted the liberty to join the proceedings at the stage the case is fixed before the Ld. District Commission  and submit their written arguments in the main consumer complaint.

 

14.     Complete record along-with certified copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh immediately.

 

15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

16.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

22^nd Aug., 2024

               Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”