Haryana

StateCommission

RP/18/2019

CLEARTRIP PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

PAWANDEEP SINGH

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    18 of 2019

Date of Institution:       21.12.2019

Date of Decision:         25.02.2019

 

Cleartrip Private Limited, 312-316, Third Floor, Vipul Agoa Building, next to Sahara Mall, M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122003.

Regd. Office at Unit No.001, Ground Floor, DTC Building, Sitaram Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Delisle Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011, through its authorized representative Mr. V. Sriram.

 

 

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Manjeet Singh, Advocate son of Shri Jai Pal, resident of Village Jaroda, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

2.      Karamveer son of Shri Bachan Singh, resident of Village Kishan Pura Damla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

3.      Parveen Kumar son of late Shri Naseeb Singh, resident of House No.17, PWD Colony, Near Bus Stand, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

 

4.      Davender Kumar son of Shri Ram Saran Bhat, resident of #658/1, Jhansa Road, Near Krishna Computers, Kurukshetra.

 

…..Respondents No.1 to 4-Complainants

 

5.      Vistara Airlines, Tata Sia Airlines Ltd., 10^th floor, One Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003, through its Director/MD Authorized Officer.

 

……Respondent No.5-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

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

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

Present:     Mr. Arjun Kundra, counsel for the petitioner.

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

The opposite party No.2-Cleartrip Private Limited has filed the present revision petition under Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. It has also challenged the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned District Forum dismissing its application seeking setting aside of ex parte order.

2.      While passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2018, learned District Forum after taking into consideration that the registered notice sent to the petitioner had not been received back served or otherwise and though a period of 30 days had passed since issuance of notice, it was deemed to have been served and as none has put in appearance on its behalf, despite the fact that the matter was taken up on that day on four different occasions but none had appeared on its behalf, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Instead of challenging the said order by filing an appeal, the petitioner sought setting aside the ex parte by filing an application in this regard. The said application was however declined by the learned District Forum by observing that there was no provision under the Consumer Protection Act wherein the Forum could review its own order. Moreover, the petitioner through its counsel was free to join further proceedings.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed i.e. 31.10.2018 before the learned District Forum was neither willful nor intentional but for the reasons that the summons were received in the Branch Office of the petitioner company at Gurugram somewhere around 30.10.2018 and thereafter the internal communications between the various departments in the Branch Office Gurugram and then communications with the head office in Mumbai consumed a lot of time. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been permitted to join the proceedings from 25.01.2018 yet it intends to participate in the proceedings by challenging the complaint and to file the written version. It is further submitted that the matter is now fixed for recording evidence of the complainants before the learned District Forum for 27.02.2019.

4.      Be that as it may and without going deep into the matter, the Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice shall be amply met if the impugned orders dated 31.10.2018 and 25.01.2019 are set aside and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.  

5.      Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 31.10.2018 and 25.01.2019 to the extent of declaring the petitioner ex parte are set aside subject to the costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainants, on the date fixed i.e. 27.02.2019, before the District Forum.  

6.      This revision petition is 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.  Reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in                        Batala  Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.     

                                                                                               

Announced 25.02.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.