Haryana

StateCommission

RP/103/2019

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRITAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VIRENDER SACHDEVA

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Revision Petition No.103 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:09.12.2019

          Date of Decision:19.12.2019

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2.      The Sub-Divisional Officer (Operation) UHBVNL Sub Division Jundla, District Karnal.

 

..…Revisionists

Versus

 

Pritam Singh S/o Sh.Hukam Singh R/o Village Dadupur, Tehsil and District Karnal.

…Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the petitioners.

O R D E R

HARNAN SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

 

          Opposite parties-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. has filed the instant revision petition  under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (herein referred to as “the Act”) for challenging the order dated  22.10.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby its  defence was struck off.

2.      On perusal of the impugned order it is made out that  the case was fixed for written statement, but, O.Ps. did not file written statement despite last opportunity.  A date was requested by the counsel for the opposite parties, which was opposed by the complainant. In view of Section 13 of the Act, the defence of the petitioners were struck off by the learned District Forum.

3.      According to the petitioners its defence was wrongly struck off and in case one more opportunity was granted, the petitioners could have filed its written version.  It is also submitted that the complaint is now fixed before the learned District Forum for arguments.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that learned District Forum fell into error while passing order dated 22.10.2019 and opportunity could have been granted by imposing cost.  Thus, in order to avoid mis-carriage of justice and in the interest of justice one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to file its written version on or before the next date i.e. 23.12.2019.  No prejudice will be caused to the other party.  Everyone has a right to defend his own case so that the case is decided on merits.

5.      Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted, impugned order  dated 22.10.2019 passed by the learned District Forum while striking of defence of the petitioners is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity for filing the written version.  For the purpose of filing the written version, the petitioner through his counsel  shall appear before the learned District Forum, Karnal on 23.12.2019.  The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-  to be paid by the petitioners to complainant-Pritam Singh on 23.12.2019 before filing its written version.

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

 

19th  December, 2019       Manjula                                             Harnam Singh Thakur

                                                Member                                             Judicial Member

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)