STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Revision Petition No.    14 of 2021

Date of Institution:       12.07.2021

Date of Decision:         14.07.2021

Nissan Motor India Ltd., 5^th Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sohana Road, Sector 48, Gurgaon-122014.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Baljeet Singh s/o Shri Ram Saran, r/o Village Balwanti, Post Office Nauch, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

……Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s ABA Motors Pvt. Ltd., 9^th Milestone, Opposite Nillam University, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

…..Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

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

Present:     Shri Vishal Kaushal, counsel for the petitioner.

*****

(Proceedings through whatsapp audio call)

O R D E R

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

          The instant revision has been filed by opposite party No.2-Nissan Motor India Limited for challenging the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, whereby, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.      

2.      While passing the impugned order, the District Consumer Commission observed as under:

“…..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.RH469316116IN, 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 25.9.2020 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 states that the petitioner had received the notice of the complaint titled ‘Baljeet Singh Versus ABA Motors Pvt. Limited and another’ but the counsel representing the petitioner had noted a wrong date i.e. 23.11.2020 instead of 23.10.2020. For that reason, the petitioner could not appear before the District Consumer Commission on 23.10.2020. The next date of hearing was declared a holiday. When the counsel representing the petitioner realized his mistake, he immediately moved an application for review of the order dated 23.10.2020. However, the application for review was dismissed by the District Consumer Commission on 13.01.2021. Thereafter, all the details were collected by the counsel representing the petitioner and drafted the reply to be filed by the petitioner. The absence of the petitioner on 23.10.2020 was not intentional but due to above mentioned reason. The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, if, the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 is not set aside. The petitioner had no intention of delaying the proceedings and, accordingly, he has undertaken to file the reply and evidence on the next date i.e. 15.07.2021, which is fixed for recording evidence of the complainant. No prejudice would be caused to any party in case the petition is accepted and the petitioner granted one more opportunity for filing the Power of Attorney and written version. It will also lead to disposal of the complaint in just and equitable manner.

4.      Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that ends of justice shall be suitably met, if, the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 is set aside and the petitioner granted one more opportunity for filing the Power of Attorney and written version besides recording its evidence.

5.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner granted one more opportunity for filing the Power of Attorney and written version besides recording its evidence. The petitioner shall appear before the District Consumer Commission on 15.07.2021 and file the Power of Attorney as well as written version. The order is however subject to costs of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance and filing the Power of Attorney as well as written version, which amount shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of the complainant Baljeet Singh.

6.      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. 

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Forum as well as to the parties.