Haryana

StateCommission

RP/86/2023

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DAUPHIN TRAVEL MARKETING PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. PARVEEN JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

AKSHIT MEHTA

14 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

                                              Date of the Institution: 16.11.2024

                                                Date of final hearing: 14.03.2024

                                                          Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2024

 

Revision Petition No.86 of 2023

 

1.      The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Opposite Deventure Hotel, Namaste Chowk, Karnal-132101 (Haryana).

2.      The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Chowk, Branch,       Sonepat-131001 (Haryana).                   

                                    

.….Revisionist

 

Versus

M/s Dauphin Travel Marketing Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at A-212 C/304 Tirupati Plaza, Street No.1, Shankarpur, Delhi—110092 through its director Sh. PAveen Jain son of Jai Kumar Jain resident of House No.386, Ward No.1, Sonepat 131001

 

                                                                                      .….Respondent

CORAM:      Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

                  

Present:-     Mr. Akshit Mehta, counsel for the revisionist.

                              

 

                  

                                                O R D E R

 

 

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

 

                   Challenge in this reivisin petition has been invited to the legality of order dated 20.09.2023, passed by Ld. District Consumer Commission, Sonepat, vide which application moved by revisionists for setting aside ex parte order dated 17.05.2023, has been dismissed.

2.                Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has urged that impugned order is grossly erroneous on all fronts-legal or factual. Ld. Counsel has urged that legal right of revisionist to defend the proceedings before Ld. District Consumer Commission cannot be scuttled by proceeding revisionists, ex parte, through order dated 17.05.2023. It is urged that lis between the parties should be decided on merits by hearing all parties and by providing opportunity to all parties to put forward, his/her/their respective case. It is urged that Ld. Consumer Commission has not followed these fundamental legal principles and illegally dismissed the application filed by the revisionists for setting aside ex parte order dated 17.05.2023, through impunged order dated 20.09.2023.

3.                This Commission does not see any requirement to issue notice in this revision petition to complainant, and disposes of this revision petition, in limine, by declining and rejecting it. Issue, whether ex parte proceedings can be set aside or not by District Consumer Commission through an application of any aggrieved party, is no more res integra. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar & other, Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007, decided on 19.08.2021, has held that District Forums and State Commissions have not been given by statute, any power to set aside ex parte orders. Powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised. Again Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Samaresh Parsad Chowdhary Versus UCO Bank and others, Civil Appeal No.8181 of 2019, arising out of SLP (c) No.9268 of 2017 has again held that there is no power to set aside ex parte order, as far as State Commission is concerned and the amendment which was brought about only was about the empowerment of National Commission under Section 22A of Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, applications of applicants therein were dismissed.

4.                Ld. Counsel for revisionist could not show any contrary legal precedent in order to controvert above ratio of law and fairly conceded in that respect. This being so, this revision petition sans merit on its face and consequently dismissed. File be consigned to the records.

5.                Let, original documents be returned to the parties after getting photocopies of that documents from them against proper receipt and as per rules, after noting down in the registered, if maintained.

6.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed off accordingly in terms of this order.

7.                File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 14^th March, 2024  

 

HG

                                                           

                                                            Manjula                                 Naresh Katyal                                                                           Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench-I                       Addl. Bench-I