View 1169 Cases Against Mahindra And Mahindra
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. filed a consumer case on 31 May 2019 against MANDEEP in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is RP/51/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Jun 2019.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Revision Petition No : 51 of 2019
Date of Institution: 31.05.2019
Date of Decision : 31.05.2019
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Swaraj Division Tractor, Plot No.2, Village Chapcheri, P.O. Landra, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Authorized Representative.
Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Mandeep age 28 years son of Sh. Satbir Singh, resident of Khader, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar.
Respondent No.1-Complainant
2. Salasar Tractor, Freedom Colony, G.T. Road, Hansi, District Hisar, through its M.D. or Authorized Representative.
Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner.
O R D E R
T.P.S. MANN J.
The petitioner, who is opposite party No.1 in the complaint titled as ‘Mandeep Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and Anr.’ has filed the present revision petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 05.03.2019, the petitioner did not put in appearance despite the fact that notice stood issued to him was not received back served or unserved and finally when it was 3.30 P.M and none had put in appearance on its behalf, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the case fixed for recording the complainant’s evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the notice stood served upon the petitioner and its Law Officer engaged a counsel on behalf of the petitioner but due to some communication gap, the counsel did not appear before the learned District Forum on 05.03.2019. The non appearance of the petitioner was unintentional. In case the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
4. Be that as it may but keeping in view the interest of justice, the State Commission is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted another chance to put in appearance before the learned District Forum and join the proceedings besides filing the written version.
5. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Hisar to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to appear before the learned District Forum and join the proceedings besides filing the written version. He shall appear before the learned District Forum on the date fixed i.e. 04.07.2019 and file his written version. The present order is, however, subject to costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by petitioner/opposite party No.1 to the complainant/respondent No.1 before the learned District Forum.
6. This revision petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart 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 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 27th, 2002.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Forum as well as to the parties.
Announced 31.05.2019 | (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member |
| (T.P.S. Mann) President |
UK
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.