STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 21.10.2024

                                                         Date of final hearing: 06.11.2024

Date of pronouncement: 06.11.2024

Revision Petition No.81 of 2024

HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch at SCO No. 409, Sector-8, Panchkula-134109, through its Branch Manager.                                  .….Petitioner

Versus

1. M/s Ibex Corporation, H.No. 306, 1^st Floor, Sector-7, Panchkula-134109 through its partner Sandeep Bhanot.
2. Yes Bank, IFSC Code: YESB0000208, MICR Code: 110532044, Branch at Ground and First Floor, Capital Exim Centre, Unit G3, Plot No. 5 LSC Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110020, through its Branch Manager (Phone No.011-30588924).      

….Respondents

CORAM:             Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                             Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member. 

Present:-              Mr. S.C. Thatai, counsel for petitioner.

O R D E R

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   Delay of 13 days in filing of revision petition stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay and accompanying affidavit which constitute ‘sufficient cause’ within the ambit of Section 5 of Limitation Act.  

2.       In this revision petition; petitioner/HDFC Bank (OP No. 1 in complaint) has invited challenge to the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Panchkula vide which petitioner/OP No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte, by observing simultaneously that statutory period of 45 days for filing written statement has already expired. Main complaint is pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula. Keeping in view the text of revision petition this Commission does not deem it necessary to issue notice of it to complainant as it would unnecessary delay the disposal of main complaint and to save the parties to this lis with the burden of unnecessary expenses.

3.       Learned counsel for petitioner/HDFC Bank has urged that non-appearance of petitioner/OP No.1 before learned District Consumer Commission  on 04.07.2024 was neither intentional nor it was accentuated by any mala-fide and revisionist/HDFC Bank has not gained anything by not filing written statement. It is urged that now permission be granted to petitioner herein to tender defense/written version by putting appearance before learned District Consumer Commission by setting aside order dated 04.07.2024. Further, it is contended that main complaint is still at its initial stage.

4.       On analyzing above contentions and while keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for petitioner/HDFC Bank that main complaint is still at its initial stage, therefore, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (M/s Ibex Corporation) in case petitioner/HDFC Bank 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.  In case 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.

5.       In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Panchkula in Complaint Case No.89 of 2024 titled as M/s Ibex Corporation Vs. HDFC Bank & Another is hereby set aside. Petitioner herein (HDFC Bank-OP No.1 in Complaint Case No. 89 of 2024) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula on 10.12.2024, either through its authorized representative or through counsel and would also file its written version/written statement on that day (10.12.2024) itself. This concession granted to petitioner herein/HDFC Bank would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner- HDFC Bank in District Legal Services Authority-Panchkula and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.89 of 2024) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Panchkula. Deposit of cost amount of Rs.10,000/- would be condition precedent for filing written statement by revisionist and to put its appearance.

6.      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.

7.       File be consigned to record room.                                               

Date of pronouncement: 06^th November, 2024.

                                      S.C. Kaushik               Naresh Katyal      

                                     Member                        Judicial Member

Addl. Bench                Addl. Bench