Haryana

StateCommission

RP/54/2024

M/S IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAVITA - Opp.Party(s)

VINEET SEHGAL

29 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

  Revision Petition No.54  of 2024

 Date of Institution/Filing:21.07.2024

  Date  of  Decision:29.07.2024

 

M/s IIFL Home Finance Limited (Formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Limited) Corporate Identify No.U65993MH206LC166475.

Corporate Office: Plot NO.98, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector 18, Gurugram, Haryana-122016.

Registered Office: IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, road No.16 V Plot No.B-23, MIDC, Thane, Industrial Area Wagle Estate Thane-400604 through its authorized officer Paramjit Singh

Email id:advsehgalvineet@gmail.com

Mobile No.9914232425.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Kavita S/o Late Sh.Raj Singh, R/o House No.703/5, Patel Nagar, Gurugram (Haryana).

…..Respondent

2.      Ajay M/s IIFL Home Finance Limited (formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Limited), Corporate Office: Plot No.98, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana-122016.

…..Performa Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Sh. Vineet Sehgal, counsel for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

           

          This revision petition is preferred against the order dated  02.07.2024 in Consumer Complaint No.984 of 2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram whereby the defence of the OP was struck off and the complaint was adjourned for 06.08.2024 for filing evidence of the complainant.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.Vineet Sehgal, Advocate 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.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the revisionist that reply on behalf of the petitioner/OPs was prepared but could not be filed as the authorized officer, who had to sign the same was not available due to some personal difficulty.  The non-filing of reply by the OP on  02.07.2024 was neither willful not intentional but on account of the abovesaid reasons. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the order dated 02.07.2024 to the extent of striking of the defence of the opposite party be set aside and permission be granted to file written statement.

4.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that defence struck off proceeding was initiated against opposite party, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P.  is afforded an opportunity to defend itself  before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, defence struck off proceedings dated 02.07.2024 initiated against  O.P.-petitioner is set aside.  The revision petition is allowed. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.7000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission, Gurugram, which costs be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Kavita.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file written version and thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Gurugram on 06.08.2024 for further proceedings.

6.      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 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 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.

7.  

8.      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

9.      File be consigned to record room.

 

29th  July, 2024                   Manjula                  S.P.Sood                     T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member             President

0S.K(Pvt. Secy.)