Haryana

StateCommission

RP/61/2024

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HARDIK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

RAM AVTAR

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.61  of 2024

 Date of Institution/Filing:28.08.2024

  Date  of  Decision:02.09.2024

 

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Gohana, District Panipat.

Now through Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

M/s Hardik Construction Company situated at A-1/23, Eldeco Estate One, Sector-40, Panipat through its partner Sh.Madhur Goel (aged 35 years): Aadhar NO.571754658502, M.No.8221000340.

 

…..Respondent

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

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Sh. Ram Avtar, counsel for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

           

          This revision petition is preferred against the order dated  13.03.2024 passed  in Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2023 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, whereby OP-petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and the complaint was adjourned for 02.05.2024 for filing evidence of the complainant.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Ram  Avtar, counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist has also been properly perused and examined.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Sh.Ram Avtar, counsel for the revisionist that notice of the complaint was received in the office of petitioner at Branch Office, Panipat, on 11.03.2024 but the office of the petitioner failed to inform the counsel to appear before the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat on 13.03.2024 through an oversight and due to heavy work load. Due to non-appearance of the counsel or any representative of the petitioner company on 13.03.2024, the learned District Consumer Commission, Panipat had passed the ex parte order against the petitioner insurance company and adjourned the matter for 02.05.2024 for the evidence of the complainant.  On 04.07.2024, the petitioner insurance company moved an application before the District Consumer Commission, Panipat for setting aside the ex parte order dated 13.03.2024, but, Ld. District Consumer Commission has also dismissed the application filed by the insurance company for setting aside the ex parte order dated 13.03.2024 and now the case is fixed for arguments on 03.09.2024 i.e. tomorrow.  Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the order dated 13.03.2024 be set aside and permission be granted to file written version and record the evidence.

4.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against opposite party, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P. is afforded an opportunity to defend itself  before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, ex parte proceedings dated 13.03.2024 initiated against  O.P.-petitioner is set aside.  Order dated 04.07.2024 is also set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission, Panipat, which costs be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Hardik Construction.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file written version on 03.09.2024 and one effective opportunity to lead its evidence and thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.       The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Panipat on 03.09.2024 for further proceedings.

6.      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 judgement 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.

7.  

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

9.      File be consigned to record room.

 

2^nd September, 2024                      S.P.Sood                              T.P. S. Mann

                                                            Judicial Member                 President

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)