Haryana

StateCommission

RP/6/2021

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

24 Mar 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    06 of 2021

Date of Institution:        10.03.2021

Date of Decision:         24.03.2021

 

M/s Amazon Seller Services Private Limited through its authorized signatory having its registered office at Brigade Gateway 8^th Floor, 26/1, Director Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Arun Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Faggu Pandit Wali Gali inside Mata Gate Kaithal, Haryana.

2.      Narman Goel son of Ashwani Kumar, resident of House No.1530, Gali No.12, Rishi Nagar, Kaithal, Haryana.

…….Respondents No.1 & 2-Complainants

3.      Acko Technology & Service Pvt. Ltd. # 36/5 Hustle Hub One Somasandrapalya, 2^nd Main Road, Sector 2, HSR Layout, Bengaluru Karnataka-560102.

…….Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

Present:     Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

          Opposite party No.2-M/s Amazon Seller Services Private Limited has filed the present revision for challenging the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

2.      While passing the impugned order, the District Commission passed the following order:

“Summon issued to OP no.2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. A period of more than one month has been lapsed, which means that summon issued to OP no.2 through registered post would have been served upon him. From the internet, a print has been taken regarding the registered post bearing Consignment No.RH468938335IN, vide which the notice was sent to OP no.2. From this consignment letter, it is clear that notice sent through registered post to OP no.2 has been delivered to him on 23.11.2020 and from this, it is clear that the service has been effected upon OP no.2. However, despite repeated calls since morning, no one is present on behalf of OP no.2. It is already 03:30 PM. No more wait is justified. So, OP no.2, is hereby proceeded against ex parte.”

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Commission had issued notices against the opposite parties in the complaint and this fact was intimated to the petitioner by its counsel at Kaithal. However, the Clerk of the counsel inadvertently did not take note of the same in the diary maintained by him. The Clerk was also not regularly attending the office on account of non-functioning of the courts due to pandemic and was not present in the office on 15.01.2021. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner could not remain present on 15.01.2021 before the District Commission. No one appeared before the District Commission, accordingly, which was due to bona fide omission on the part of its counsel. The District Commission accordingly ordered for ex parte proceedings against the petitioner and adjourned the case for 23.02.2021. On 25.01.2021, when the petitioner sought details of the status of the complaint from its counsel, it was discovered that it had been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte owing to non-appearance. The absence of the petitioner or its counsel on 15.01.2021 was not intentional but due to the reasons stated above. In case, the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in the complaint preferred by the complainants under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The State Commission has also been informed that the complaint now stands adjourned to 01.04.2021 for filing of written version by opposite party No.1. Prayer has accordingly been made for granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to put in appearance before the District Commission on 01.04.2021 and file Power of Attorney and also the written version.

4.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the District Commission to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity for filing the Power of Attorney and the written version. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner on 01.04.2021 while putting in appearance before the District Commission, which amount shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of the complainants in equal shares.

5.      This revision petition is being 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 respondents 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^th, 2002. 

6.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission as well as to the parties.

                                                                                               

Announced 24.03.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

 

 

 

DR