STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Revision Petition No.37 of 2022
Date of Institution:17.06.2022
Date of Decision:07.07.2022
M/s Yes Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Sheela Shoppee Complex, Sanjay Chowk, G.T. Road, Panipat.
…..Petitioner
Versus
Pardeep Kumar S/o Ram Kishan, R/o House No.115, Virat Nagar, Phase-2, Panipat.
…..Respondent
CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Present:- Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revision Petition is preferred against the orders dated 25.04.2022 and 03.06.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.62 of 2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 (Yes Bank Limited) was proceeded ex parte.
2. The argument has been advanced by Sh. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
3. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr. Deepak Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-complainant himself is practicing as an advocate at Panipat and after the service of summons and effort was made by the petitioner to understand the grievance of respondent-complainant and to settle the matter. He further argued that during interregnum as talks were going on and the date of hearing in the matter escaped attention of the concerned manager. After the talks failed, the petitioner assigned the matter to local counsel for drafting of reply and defending the matter. However, while preparing reply, somewhere in third or fourth week of May, 2022 as the next date of hearing was already approaching on inspection of the online order, it transpired that due to non appearance on 25.04.2022, the petitioner-opposite party has been proceeded against ex-parte and vide order dated 03.06.2022, the complaint was adjourned to 11.07.2022. He further argued that non appearance before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that orders dated 25.04.2022 and 03.06.2022 may be set setting aside and present revision petitioner may be allowed.
4. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated against opposite party No.1, but, 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 revisionist-opposite party No.1 is afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 25.04.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Panipat vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against opposite party No.1-petitioner is set aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as of costs to be paid to the respondent-complainant. Let, the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.
5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Panipat on 10.07.2022 for further proceedings.
6. This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents 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 judgment 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. Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Panipat.
07th July, 2022 S.C. Kaushik S. P. Sood Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
R.K.
