Haryana

StateCommission

RP/18/2022

INDUSIND BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

AYODHYA KISHORE - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.18   of 2022

 Date of Institution:28.03.2022

  Date  of  Decision:27.04.2022

 

IndusInd Bank Ltd Manesar, Gurugram through its Branch Manager/Authorized signatory Shop No.2 and 2, Eros Corporate Park, K Block, Sector-02 Manesar Gurugram Distt Gurugram, Haryana

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

Ayodhya Kishore Srivastava aged 71 years R/o 701, Yower-3, Vipul Lavanya Sector-81, Nawada Fatehpur Haryana 122004.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  15.03.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram vide which Opposite Party-Indu Sind Bank was  proceeded ex parte.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Rohit Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Rohit Goswami, the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist has received the summon of the case but somehow due to in advertence the wrong date was noted by the counsel for the petitioner before District Commission Gurugram and due to non appearance of counsel on fixed date, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte.  The non appearance before the ld. District Commission is not intentional but due to the reason mentioned above. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that ex parte proceeding dated 15.03.2022 may be set setting aside.

4.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against opposite party, 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-O.P. is afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceeding dated 15.03.2022 initiated against  O.P.-petitioner is set aside.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Gurugram on  03.06.2022 for further proceedings.

6.      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 judgement 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, Gurugram.

 

27th  April, 2022      Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)