Haryana

StateCommission

RP/84/2019

INDUSIND BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

22 Oct 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.84   of 2019

 Date of Institution:09.10.2019

  Date  of  Decision:22.10.2019

 

1. IndusInd Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, Hansi.
2. IndusInd Bank Limited, G.N.Chetty Road Office, New No.34, (Old No.115-116), G.N.Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600017.

Petitioners No.1and 2 through their Legal Manager & authorized signatory, Sh.Sunil  Kalra, aged 38 years S/o Sh.Subhash Chander, # SCO No.99, Green Square Market, Hisar.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh.Ishwar, R/o Bass Azam, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  17.09.2019 in complaint No. 637 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short ‘the forum) vide which   O.Ps-petitioners were  proceeded ex parte and application dated 18.09.2019 to set aside the order dated 17.09.2019 was dismissed.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionists had also been properly perused and examined.

4.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, the learned counsel for the revisionists that  summons were duly served upon the Branch Manager of the Bank at Hansi. However, the instant case relates to  the loan taken by complainant from the Petitioners, which was dealt with by another wing i.e Consumer Finance Division of the bank, which was having a Branch Office at Hisar.  The summons were sent to the Hansi Branch of the Bank which was only a service provider. The summons as received were inadvertently attached with another file and thus could not be properly linked up on the date of hearing.  Since there was no representation of petitioners before the Forum, thus proceeded against ex parte on 17.09.2019.  It is also submitted by learned counsel  for revisionists that on 18.09.2019 an application was also filed by  the petitioners before learned Forum to set aside order dated 17.09.2019, but,  the same was also dismissed.  Learned counsel for the revisionists prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 17.09.2019 be set aside.

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceedings were initiated against O.Ps., but, it may be noted that vide order dated 18.09.2019 though the application was dismissed for setting aside order dated 17.09.2019 but petitioners were allowed to join further proceedings. It is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionists-O.Ps. are afforded an opportunity to defend them before the learned forum, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceedings dated 17.09.2019 and order dated 18.09.2019 against  O.Ps.-petitioners are set aside subject to the payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned Forum on 30.10.2019 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

7.      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 respondents 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.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

22nd  October, 2019                                              Harnam Singh Thakur                                                                                                      Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)