Uttarakhand

StateCommission

RP/25/2022

M/s Stona Tyles - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s A-Pundir Construction - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Srivastava

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 25 / 2022

 

M/s Stona Tiles through its Proprietor

Sh. Manoj Agarwal S/o late Sh. N.P. Agarwal

R/o 147/2, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun

…… Revisionist

 

Versus

 

M/s A-Pundir Construction through its Proprietor

Sh. Anubhav Pundir S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh Pundir

R/o 77/1-A, Dwarikapuram, Lane No. 2

Mothrowala, Dehradun

…… Opposite Party

 

Sh. Rohit Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 17/10/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 560 of 2022; A-Pundir Construction VS. Stona Tiles, whereby the District Commission has passed an order to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the revisionist (who was opposite party before the District Commission).    

 

2.       Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.  Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel no need to issue notice to the opposite party – complainant and find it a fit case to be decided at admission stage itself, without issuing notice to the opposite party and calling for its appearance, on account of the reason that it is settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.  It is further settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical one.  No prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite party – complainant, in case the revisionist is granted opportunity of hearing and for granting such an opportunity to the revisionist, the opposite party – complainant may be compensated by way of costs.

 

3.       Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had received the summons / notice issued by the District Commission in the aforesaid consumer complaint, wherein the date fixed was mentioned as “20.07.2022”.  The revisionist, being a layman, has no knowledge of the legal proceeding, hence he contacted his counsel, but due to his busy schedule, the counsel could not give time to the revisionist.  On 20.07.2022, when the revisionist reached the District Commission, he was informed that the consumer complaint has been adjourned to 23.09.2022.  On 23.09.2022, when the revisionist reached the District Commission with his counsel, he came to know that the consumer complaint is proceeded ex-parte against the revisionist and the same is fixed for ex-parte evidence of the complainant.  Thereafter, the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 30.09.2022, which was received on 01.10.2022.  On the very first date, i.e., 20.07.2022 fixed for filing the written statement, the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission against the revisionist.  Learned counsel also submitted that in the interest of justice, the revisionist may be granted an opportunity of hearing, as there was no intentional laches on the part of the revisionist in not appearing before the District Commission.   

 

4.       We find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and are of the considered opinion that the revisionist need to be granted an opportunity of hearing.  Therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, Dehradun, subject to the payment of costs of               Rs. 2,000/-, payable by the revisionist to the opposite party – complainant. 

 

5.       For the foregoing reasons, Revision Petition is allowed.  Impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the revisionist to the opposite party – complainant.  The revisionist is directed to appear before the District Commission on 01.12.2022, date fixed in the consumer complaint, whereupon the District Commission shall proceed further with the consumer complaint, as per law.  It is made clear that the above costs shall be paid by the revisionist to the opposite party – complainant before the District Commission prior to the date fixed in the consumer complaint, failing which the revisionist shall not be provided any opportunity of hearing.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.  

 

6.       A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K