STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:03.03.2023
Date of final hearing:24.03.2023
Date of pronouncement: 24.03.2023
Revision Petition No.30 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Indian Bank (Previously Allahabad Bank) Through its Authorized Officer, Address: First Floor, SAM Branch, Indian Bank, 17 Parliament Street New Delhi.
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Deepak Jaglan, Advocate
Versus
M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog; Head Office Mohalla Qutubpur, Rewari, through its Partner; Mr. Shyam Gupta.
….Respondent.
CORAM: S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, counsel for the revisionist.
O R D E R
PER: S.C. KAUSHIK MEMBER:
As per order dated 04.03.2022 contained in letter No.594, I am conducting these proceedings singly.
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 whereby application for review of the order dated 06.10.2022, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (in short ‘learned District Commission’), was dismissed and defence of the present revisionist, who was opposite party before learned District Commission, was struck off.
2. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionist-opposite party has preferred the present revisionist petition.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the complainant-respondent has filed a consumer complaint bearing No.209 of 2020 before learned District Commission, Rewari. Thereafter, the complaint was fixed for 27.09.2022 for filing written statement on behalf of the present revisionist-opposite party, but the counsel for revisionist-opposite party could not file written statement before the learned District Commission due to by mistake next date of hearing was noted down i.e. dated 26.10.2022 instead of 06.10.2022. Hence, learned District Commission, Rewari passed the impugned order on dated 06.10.2022 vide which defence of revisionist-opposite party was struck off. Thereafter, review application was also filed before the learned District Commission by the applicant Bank for setting aside the order dated 06.10.2022, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2023. It has further argued that non filing of written statement by revisionist/opposite party before learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 may be set-aside and an opportunity may be given to the present revisionist-opposite party for filing its written statement, lead its evidence and advancing final arguments on merits
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that defence of the revisionist-opposite party was struck off by learned District Commission, Rewari. 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 revisionist-opposite party is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 06.10.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Rewari, is hereby set aside and the present revision petition is allowed without any order of costs. Let, the revisionist-opposite party 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 revisionist is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Rewari on 10.04.2023 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 24th March, 2023
J.Y.
S.C. Kaushik
Member
Addl. Bench
