STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 25.07.2023
Date of final hearing:18.10.2023
Date of pronouncement: 18.10.2023
Revision Petition No.65 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Shree Ram Finance Company Ltd. Office at 1st Floor, Plot No.2075/76, Shingari Industries, Chandigarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. Puneet Tuli, Advocate
Versus
1. Jasbir, S/o Shri Jai Pal, R/o Village Gobindpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.
2. Shree Ram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur Rajasthan.
….Respondents.
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Puneet Tuli, counsel for the petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 20.04.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2023, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Puneet Tuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. Puneet Tuli, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that present petitioner/opposite party No.1 was served on 20.04.2023 through Peon of the office of the present petitioner/opposite party No.1 and upon being served Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocate was deputed by the present petitioner/opposite party No.1 for causing his appearance but somehow or the other said counsel for present petitioner/opposite party No.1 could not appear before the learned District Commission as the said counsel had wrongly noticed the next date as 28.04.2023 instead of 20.04.2023. On 28.04.2023 when Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocate enquired about the present case then he came to know that the case has already been adjourned to 08.05.2023 for filing of reply/written statement of other OPs. However, on 08.05.2023 when Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocate again appeared before the learned district commission he learnt that learned District Commission has passed an order on 20.04.2023 vide which present petitioner/opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte on account of his non-appearance. He further argued that non appearance of present petitioner before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful rather this was only due to wrong noting of the date only and thus prayed that the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 passed by learned District Commission may be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed to appear and contest the complaint.
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated before learned District Commission against the present petitioner/opposite party No.1, 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 present petitioner/opposite party No.1 is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 20.04.2023, passed by learned District Commission, Ambala, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against present petitioner/opposite party No.1 is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed without any order of costs. Let, the present petitioner/opposite party No.1 be afforded an opportunity to appear before learned District Commission and to file its reply as well as to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.
6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Ambala on 02.11.2023 for further proceedings.
7. 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.
8. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. 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.
10. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 18th October, 2023
S.P.Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench
