Haryana

StateCommission

RP/31/2020

RENAULT INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

PADAMKANT DWIVEDI

11 Nov 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No:   31 of 2020

Date of Institution:       02.03.2020

Date of Decision :        11.11.2020

 

 

Renault India Private Limited, 4^th Floor, Asv Ramana Tower, 37^th & 38^th Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai -600 017 Tamil Nadu.

 

                                      ……Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Manoj Kumar son Shri Prem Chand, resident of Village Bhuri, Tehsil and District Sonepat, Haryana.

 

……Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Lekh Raj Enterprises Private Limited, NH-65, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana through its Director.

..…Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      Renault Cars Showroom, Kabirpur Byepass, Sector 38, Near Sai Mandir, Sonepat, Haryana – 131001.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member                   

 

 

Present:               Shri Padamkant Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner. 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Delay in filing of the revision is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The petitioner, who stands arrayed as opposite party No.3 in the complaint titled ‘Manoj Kumar Vs. Lekh Raj Enterprises Private Limited and Others’ has filed the present revision petition under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby, it has sought setting aside of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat proceeding ex parte against the petitioner.

3.      A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte as notice issued to the petitioner through registered cover was not received back in any form and on 25.10.2019 none had put in appearance on its behalf despite repeated calls and further wait was not justified.

4       Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been served in the aforementioned complaint.  Further, it was taken to be a case of implied service as notice had been issued to the petitioner and a period of 30 days had since expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the proceedings in the aforementioned complaint.  For that purpose, one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to put in appearance and file the written version.  In this regard, the complainant can be financially compensated.  He however states that the proceedings in the aforementioned complaint are now fixed for 15.12.2020 for awaiting service of opposite party No.2.

5.      Having heard counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned order, this Commission is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to put in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission and file the written version. 

6.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to put in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission on 15.12.2020 and file the written version. The order is however subject to costs of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant while putting in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission.

7.      This revision petition is being 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 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 27^th, 2002.  

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Consumer Commission as well as to the parties.

 

 

Announced 11.11.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK