STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 05.11.2024
Date of final hearing: 03.12.2024
Date of pronouncement: 03.12.2024
Revision Petition No.85 of 2024
HSVP through its Estate Officer, Panchkula, O/o HSVP, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.
.….Petitioner
Versus
Jyoti Midha W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Midha, R/o Kranti Mohalla, Siwan, Kaithal, Haryana-136003. ….Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
There is delay of 452 days in filing of this revision petition which is accompanied by affidavit. Looking at the text of application and on hearing learned counsel on said application, it is apparent that revisionist has not gained anything by filing this revision petition, belatedly. It is settled law that courts should endeavor to decide the lis between the parties on merits, instead of throwing the cause of any litigant, overboard, on technical considerations like limitation. It is also settled law that liberal approach should be adopted in matters concerning condonation of delay and acceptance of explanation projected in the application should normally be the criteria unless said explanation is accentuated by ulterior motives and mala fide intention. In present case, no such mala fide intention or ulterior motive is deciphered. To the contrary, cause projected in the application for condonation of delay and accompanying affidavit do constitute ‘sufficient cause’ as per Section 5 of Limitation Act. This being so; application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
2. In this revision petition; petitioner/HSVP (OP in complaint) has invited challenge against order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Panchkula vide which defence of petitioner/OP has been struck off, by observing simultaneously that statutory period of 45 days for filing written statement has already expired. Keeping in view the recitals of revision petition; this Commission does not deem necessary to issue notice of it to complainant as it would unnecessary delay the disposal of main complaint and instead would save the parties to this lis with the burden of unnecessary expenses.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner/HSVP has urged that delay in filing of written statement on behalf of petitioner/OP before learned District Consumer Commission was not intentional nor there was any mala-fide intention. It is urged that rights of revisionist/HSVP have been prejudiced by not filing written statement. It is also urged that now permission be granted to revisionist to tender its defense/written version by joining proceedings of complaint, sub-judice before learned District Consumer Commission, on date fixed before it, by setting aside impugned order dated 24.04.2023. Further, it is contended that main complaint is still pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula.
4. On analyzing above contentions and while keeping in view the fact that consumer’s complaint is still pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula; this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Jyoti Midha) in case petitioner/HSVP is now allowed to join proceedings of complaint case and permitted to tender its defense/written statement. While observing so, this Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Further, in process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be afforded adequate opportunity to put forward his/her/its case in a meaningful manner. This would also enable the learned District Consumer Commission to impart substantial justice to the parties by adjudicating the lis before it, on its relative merits, in the light of pleas/evidence of both parties.
5. In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Panchkula in Complaint Case No.22 of 2023 titled as Jyoti Midha Vs. HSVP is hereby set aside. Petitioner herein (HSVP-OP in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2023) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula on 30.01.2025, either through its authorized representative or through counsel and would also file its written version/written statement on that day (30.01.2025), itself. Thereafter, learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula would proceed ahead with the complaint as per law. This concession granted to petitioner herein/HSVP would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by petitioner-HSVP in District Legal Services Authority-Panchkula and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.23 of 2023) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula. Deposit of cost amount of Rs.5,000/- would be condition precedent for filing written statement/defense by revisionist and to put its appearance.
6. A copy of this order be provided to parties of this lis, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.
7. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 03rd December, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
