Haryana

StateCommission

RP/31/2022

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAJENDER NATH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. NEGI

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Revision Petition No. RP/31/2022
( Date of Filing : 24 May 2022 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. 41/2022 of District Yamunanagar)
 
1. UHBVNL
SUB DIVISION, SADHAURA
YAMUNA NAGAR
HARYANA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. GAJENDER NATH
NEAR CIVIL HOSPITAL SADHAURA
YAMUNA NAGAR
HARYANA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  S . P . Sood PRESIDING MEMBER
  Suresh Chander Kaushik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Aug 2022
Final Order / Judgement

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:24.05.2022

  Date of final hearing:30.08.2022

Date of Pronouncement:30.08.2022

 

Revision Petition No.31 of 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF

  1. S.D.O, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Op. Sub Division, Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar.
  2. The Executive Engineer (OP) UHBVNL, Naraingarh, District Ambala.
  3. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

…..Petitioners

Through counsel Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate.

 

 

Versus

 

Gajender Nath S/o Shri Sai Ditta Ram, R/o Near Civil Hospital, Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

…..Respondent

 

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

                    Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

 

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

 

           

                    Present revision petition is preferred against the order dated  06.04.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar, titled as “Gajender Nath Vs. UHBVNL & Ors.” vide which the petitioners-opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte.

2.                The argument has been advanced by Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the revision petition had been properly perused and examined.

3.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners that learned District Commission vide its order dated 06.04.2022 proceeded against the present petitioners ex-parte. On the said date, the counsel engaged by the petitioners could not put his appearance because another counsel has already filed his memo of appearance on behalf of petitioners and in this confusion, both the counsel could not put their appearance on 06.04.2022 before learned District Commission and ex-parte proceedings were initiated. It has further been argued that non-appearance of present petitioner/OPs before the learned District Commission was neither willful nor intentional and prayed that the order dated 06.04.2022, passed by learned District Commission may be set-aside and present revision petition may be allowed.

4.                In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated against opposite parties (present petitioners) vide order dated 06.04.2022, 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 petitioners-opposite parties are afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 06.04.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against opposite parties-petitioners is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed. Let, the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.                The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar on 13.09.2022 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 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, 2002.

7.                Record of the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar be sent back alongwith the copy of this order.

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

30th August, 2022       S.C. Kaushik                                             S. P. Sood                                                       Member                                                         Judicial Member                                            Addl. Bench                                              Addl. Bench

 

R.K.

 

 
 
[ S . P . Sood]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ Suresh Chander Kaushik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.