STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

    Revision Petition No.04 of 2022

 Date of Institution:02.03.2022

  Date of Decision:11.03.2022

Corteva Agriscience Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Office at V-Ascendas, Artia Block, 12^th Floor, Plot No.17, Soft Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081

…..Petitioner.

Versus

1.      Gurjant singh aged 37 years, S/o Shri Hardaya Singh, R/o Bachgaon, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

2.      M/s Sohan Lal Aggarwal, aged 52 years, Office at Pratap Mandi, Shahabad, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                             …..Respondents.

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

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

Present:-    Mr. Vivek Goyal  counsel for the petitioner.

                                      O R D E R

S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                    Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 15.12.2021, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (in short District Commission), vide which the present revisionist, who was opposite party No.2 before learned District Commission, was proceeded against ex-parte.

2.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionist (opposite party No.2) has preferred the present revision petition.

3.               The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vivek Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition has been properly perused and examined.

4.                Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that complainant/respondent No.1 had filed a consumer complaint bearing No.302 of 2021 before learned District Commission, Kurukshetra and notice was issued to the present revisionist/opposite party No.2 to appear before learned District Commission on 15.12.2021, but due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic the office of the revisionist was closed and the staff was directed to work from home.­ He further argued that in the middle of January, 2022 an envelope containing summons and copy of the complaint was left outside with the watchman, who was neither competent to receive the same and when the revisionist came across about the envelope and the contents of the same, he engaged Mr. Rahul Tanwar, Advocate to represent his case, who informed to the revisionist on 10.02.2022 that the revisionist had been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2021. He further argued that non appearance of revisionist before learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 may be set-aside and  an opportunity may be given to the present revisionist for filing its written statement, lead its evidence and advancing final arguments on merits.

5.                From the perusal of the case, it is clear that the present revisionist (opposite party No.2) was proceeded against ex-parte by the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra vide order dated 15.12.2021. However, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Petition No.03 of 2020 in Misc. Application No.21 of 2020 and Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 has been pleased to direct that the period from March, 2020 till 28.02.2022 will not run for the period of limitation due to Covid19 Pandemic. So, the present revisionist should be afforded an opportunity of representing itself before learned District Commission. Under these circumstances, impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra is set-aside for all intents and purposes, present revision petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra to decide the complaint on merits after affording an opportunity to present revisionist to file its written statement and to lead its respective evidence.

6.               Revisionist is directed to appear before the District Commission, Kurukshetra on 25.03.2022 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

7.                The 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 respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be safely placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in case titled as “Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur” in CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on June 27^th, 2002.

8.                Copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as learned District Commission, Kurukshetra.    

March, 11th, 2022                              S.C. Kaushik                          S.P. Sood                                                                        Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench                          Addl. Bench   

R.K.