Haryana

StateCommission

RP/73/2019

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV NARANG

25 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.73   of 2019

 Date of Institution:29.08.2019

  Date  of  Decision:25.11.2019

 

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Automotive Sector-Kandivli Plant, Akruli Road Kandivli (E), Mumbai 4000100 through its Authorized Signatory Shri S.Santhanam.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Jasbir Singh S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, R/o Village and Post Office Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

2.      M/s KBS Motors Private Ltd. Head Office at Village Tepla, Ambala-Jagadhari Road, Saha,  District Ambala through its Head Manager.

 

3.      M/s MBS Motors Private Ltd. Branch Office, Adjoining Hotel Saffron, Sector-7, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor/Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Subhash Chand  proxy counsel for Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  13.06.2019 in complaint No. 164 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short ‘the forum) vide which  O.P.No.3-petitioner was  proceeded against ex parte.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a new Bolero pick-up from O.P.No.2 and 3. It was further alleged that there were many manufacturing defects since the date of its purchase i.e. defect of brake failure, clutch, battery problem and missing speed. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Subhash Chand proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Narang, 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.

4.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Subhash  Chand proxy counsel for Mr.Vaibhav Narang, the learned counsel for the revisionist that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner-company had appointed a counsel to defend the case before the learned District Forum on the date fixed i.e. on 13.06.2019.  However, the counsel mistakenly has noted the date as 13.07.2019 instead of 13.06.2019 and could not appear before the learned District Forum and when counsel for the petitioner went to the Forum to appear on 13.07.2019 then he came to know that on 13.07.2019 the case was not listed and petitioner has been proceeded against ex parte on 13.06.2019 due to non appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 13.06.2019 be set aside.

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceedings were initiated against O.P No.3, but petitioner were allowed to join further proceedings. 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. No.3 is afforded an opportunity to defend them before the learned forum, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceedings dated 13.06.2019 against  O.P. No.3-petitioner is set aside subject to the payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.  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.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned Forum on 02.12.2019 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

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 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 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.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

25th  November, 2019       Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)