STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:16.11.2022
Date of final hearing:09.03.2023
Date of pronouncement: 09.03.2023
Revision Petition No.83 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF
Chief Administrator, HUDA (HSVP) Panchkula & Estate Officer, HUDA Kaithal
.….Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. B.S. Beniwal, Advocate
Versus
Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Rai Singh, R/o VPO Kolekhan, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, Haryana.
….Respondent.
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. B.S. Beniwal, counsel for the revisionists.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 03.08.2022, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal (in short ‘learned District Commission’), vide which the defence of the present revisionist, who was opposite parties before learned District Commission, was struck off.
2. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, revisionists-opposite parties has preferred the present revisionist petition.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. B.S. Beniwal, learned counsel for the revisionists. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. B.S. Beniwal, learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that the complainant-respondent has filed a consumer complaint bearing No.47 of 2022 before learned District Commission, Kaithal. Thereafter, the complaint was fixed for 26.05.2023 for notice/Direction and thereafter the case was fixed for 06.07.2022 and again for 03.08.2022 for filing reply/written statement on behalf of the present revisionists-opposite parties, but the counsel for opposite parties could not filed reply/written statement from the side of revisionist/ opposite parties well within time before the learned District Commission due to incomplete official proceedings which had taken long time. Hence, learned District Commission passed the impugned order and dated 03.08.2022 vide which defence of revisionists-opposite parties was struck off. It has further argued that non filing of reply/written statement by revisionist/opposite parties before learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful, so the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 may be set-aside and an opportunity may be given to the present revisionists-opposite parties 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 revisionists-opposite parties was struck off by learned District Commission, Kaithal. 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 revisionists-opposite parties are afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 03.08.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Kaithal, is hereby set aside and the present revision petition is allowed without any order of costs. Let, the revisionists-opposite parties 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, Kaithal on 17.04.2023 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 09th March, 2023
J.Y.
S.P.Sood
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench
S.C. Kaushik
Member
Addl. Bench
