Haryana

StateCommission

RP/65/2024

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK MITTAL - Opp.Party(s)

TANUJ GOYAL

21 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.65  of 2024

 Date of Institution/Filing:30.08.2024

  Date  of  Decision:21.10.2024

 

Mirza International Limited (Authorized Dealer of Redtape) having its registered office at # 783, Jhang Colony, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, Haryana through its proprietor.

 

…..OP No.1/Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Deepak Mittal S/o Sh.Sanjay Mittal, R/o H.No. 849/9, Mittal House, Kewal Ganj, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

 

…..Complainant/Respondent No.1

 

2.      Redtape having its registered office at Plot No.8, Sector-90, Noida, Uttar Pradesh through its authorized signatory.

 

…..OP No.2/ Respondent No.2

 

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

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri.Tanuj Goyal, counsel for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

           

          Delay of 426 days in filing the revision is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      This revision petition is preferred against the order dated  03.05.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.487 of 2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak whereby the defence of the OP No.1 was struck off and the complaint was adjourned for 17.07.2023 for filing evidence by the complainant.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Shri Tanuj Goyal, Advocate 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.

4.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Shri Tanuj Goyal, Advocate for the revisionist that upon notice, OP No.1 put in appearance. OP No.1 could not file written version despite several opportunities provided to it i.e. on 07.12.2022, 31.01.2023, 31,03,2023, 10.02.2023, 17.03.2023   and 03.05.2024.   Every time OP No.1 requested for adjournment and on the request made by the counsel for the OP No.1, learned District Commission granted time to file written version. Again on 03.05.2024, the OP No.1 requested  for adjournment, but District Consumer Commission struck off the defence of the OP No.1, which was highly opposed by the counsel. OP No.1 moved an application for cancelling the order dated 03.05.2023,  which was again dismissed by the learned District Consumer Commission. The proceedings were fixed for 16.10.2024 for evidence of OP No.1-complainant. The non-filing of reply by the OP No.1  on  03.05.2023 was neither willful nor intentional but on account of the abovesaid reasons. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the order dated 03.05.2023 to the extent of striking of the defence of the opposite party be set aside and permission be granted to file written version.

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that defence  stands struck off proceeding was initiated against opposite party No.1, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P No.1.  is afforded another opportunity to defend itself  before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, proceedings dated 03.05.2023 initiated against  O.P. No.1-petitioner is set aside.  The revision petition is allowed. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission, Rohtak, which costs be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Deepak Mittal.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file written version and thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Gurugram on 27.01.2025 for further proceedings.

7.      This revision petition has been 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 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.

8.  

9.      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

10.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

21st  October, 2024            Manjula                  S.P.Sood                     T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member             President

S.K (Pvt. Secy.)