STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANIPAT
Date of Institution: 06.11.2024
Date of final hearing: 14.11.2024
Date of pronouncement: 14.11.2024
Revision Petition No.86 of 2024
India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (now known as IIFL Home Finance Limited), Corporate Office: Plot No. 98, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana-122016. Registered Office: IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, Road No. 16V, Plot No. B-23, MIDC, Thane, Industrial Area, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 through its Authorized Officer-Paramjit Singh . .….Petitioner
Versus
Meera Sharma, aged 42 years, Wife of Sh. Rakesh Sharma, R/o Om Colony, New Model Town, Panipat, Aadhar No. 610890385094, Mobile No. 9671233456. ….Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Vineet Sehal, counsel for petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
In this revision petition; petitioner/IIFL Home Finance Ltd. (OP in complaint) has invited challenge to the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Panipat vide which application moved by petitioner herein/OP for setting aside ex-parte order dated 10.10.2023 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that intentionally the Branch Office of the petitioner stationed at Panipat was not made party by complainant and registered office of petitioner as mentioned in complaint, at Mumbai had been changed way-back in year-2019. It is urged that because of above reasons, the petitioner/OP was not served with notice of main complaint pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat. It is further urged that non-appearance of petitioner/OP No.1 before learned District Consumer Commission on 10.10.2023 was neither intentional, nor it was accentuated by any mala-fide but because of above reason and in any case revisionist/IIFL Home Finance Ltd. has not gained anything by not causing its appearance. Keeping in view the above contention; this Commission does not deem it necessary to issue notice of revision petition to complainant as it would unnecessary delay the disposal of main complaint and both parties to this lis would be saved to burden unnecessary expenses.
3. It is also urged that now permission be granted to petitioner herein to tender its defense/written version by putting appearance before learned District Consumer Commission by setting aside order dated 10.10.2023 and no prejudice would be caused to complainant in case petitioner is permitted to raise contest.
4. On analyzing above contentions and while keeping in view the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner/IIFL Home Finance Ltd. that main complaint is of the year 2023 and pending before learned District Consumer Commission, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Meera Sharma) in case petitioner/IIFL Home Finance Ltd. is now allowed to join proceedings of complaint case and to tender its defense/written statement. While observing so, this Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Further, in process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be afforded adequate opportunity to put forward his/her/its case in a meaningful manner.
5. In cases titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another, Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007 AND case titled as M.O.H. Lathers Vs. United Commercial Bank Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001 both decided on 19.08.2011 reported in 2011 (4) PLR 274; Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “State Commission or District Consumer Forum do not have power to set aside their own ex-parte order nor they have power to review their own orders. This power vests in National Commission only by Section 22 (A) of the Act.” It would legally imply that ex-parte order passed by learned District Consumer Commission can be legally assailed by filing revision petition.
6. In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat in Complaint Case No.254 of 2023 titled as Meera Sharma Vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. is hereby set aside. Petitioner herein (IIFL Home Finance Ltd.-OP in Complaint Case No. 254 of 2023) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat on 26.11.2024, either through its authorized representative or through counsel and would also file its written version/written statement on that day (26.11.2024) itself. This concession granted to petitioner herein/IIFL Home Finance Ltd. would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner-IIFL Home Finance Ltd. in District Legal Services Authority-Panipat and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.254 of 2023) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat. Deposit of cost amount of Rs.10,000/- would be condition precedent for filing written statement by revisionist and to put its appearance.
7. A copy of this order be provided to parties of this lis, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.
8. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 14th November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
D.K.
