STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO 72-73, Sector 17-B, Bank Square Chandigarh, through Pankaj Gupta, Operation Manager.

…… Revision Petitioner/ Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Pritpaul Singh, s/o Shri Pritam Singh, r/o 5819, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the                         Revision Petitioner.

              Respondent in person.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it (Opposite Party/now Revision Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte and the order dated 14.12.2012, vide which, the application, filed by it, for setting aside the exparte order aforesaid, was dismissed, on the ground, that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power, to review/recall its own order.

2.              The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint are that, the complainant applied for home loan, in the sum of Rs.7 lacs, to the Opposite Party, to clear the balance installments of Chandigarh Housing Board. On 25.01.2003, loan was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, vide loan account No.812675100005333. It was stated that the complainant had been paying the equal monthly installments of Rs.7,630/- per month. In the meanwhile, the complainant made a request, to the Opposite Party, for extension of the existing loan amount, as he needed more money, to renovate his house, for which he was asked to deposit Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.2,000/-, with the Opposite Party, through cheque no.309522 of Punjab National Bank, Sector 16, Chandigarh. It was further stated that, thereafter, despite various requests, and visits to the Opposite Party, by the complainant, it (Opposite Party ), did not initiate the action, to grant additional loan, applied for, after payment of the desired amount of Rs.2,000/-, to it. A complaint, in this regard, was also filed, by the complainant, with the Nodal Officer (Grievance) Ombudsmen`s Scheme 2006 RBI Chandigarh, but, the same (complaint) was closed by it, on the ground, that the matter related to the year 2003, which was beyond time, and also that the relevant documents could not be traced by the Bank/Opposite Party. Legal notices dated 23.08.2010 and 16.10.2011 (infact 16.02.2011), were also served upon the Opposite Party, to redress the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, had been issuing letters, in connection with the overdue amount, outstanding against the complainant, without disclosing the details thereof. It was further stated that a request, with regard to the supply of details of the overdue amount, was also made to the Opposite Party, but it failed to supply the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.2,000/-, deposited by him,  alongwith interest, till realization; and pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, as also misuse of the amount, withheld by it, illegally.

3.              Since, on 01.11.2012, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party, it was proceeded against exparte.

4.              Thereafter, an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 01.11.2012, was filed by the Opposite Party, which was dismissed on 14.12.2012, by the District Forum, holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power, to review/recall its own order.

5.              Feeling aggrieved, against the orders dated 1.11.2012 and 14.12.2012, the instant Revision Petition, was filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.

6.              We have heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, respondent, in person, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 

7.              The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner, submitted that, he could not put in appearance, in the District Forum, at the time, when the case was called on 01.11.2012, on account of the reason, that he had to appear, in  a case, before the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. He further submitted that after finishing the arguments, in a case, in the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, he reached the District Forum, at about 1.15 P.M. He further submitted that, as the case was fixed for filing the written version, alongwith evidence, on 01.11.2012, he had advised the Officials of the Opposite Party Bank, that their (Officials) presence was not required, in the District Forum. He further submitted that, he came to know from the Reader of the District Forum, on 01.11.2012, that the Opposite Party had been proceeded against exparte, as no authorized representative on its behalf put in appearance. He further submitted that the absence of the Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner, was not intentional and deliberate, on the date fixed. He further submitted that, in case, the exparte order dated 01.11.2012 and the order dated 14.12.2012, were not set aside, miscarriage of justice shall occasion, as, in that event, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, shall be condemned unheard. He further submitted that the orders of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, are liable to be set aside.

8.              On the other hand, the respondent submitted that, no document had been placed, on record, by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, to prove that he had to appear, in a case, before the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, and could not appear, in time, before the District Forum, on 01.11.2012, the date, when the complaint case was fixed for filing the written version, alongwith evidence. He further submitted that the absence of the Opposite Party and its Counsel, on the date fixed, was intentional and deliberate. He further submitted that, as none appeared on its (Opposite Party) behalf, on 01.11.2012, there was therefore, no alternative with the District Forum, than to proceed exparte against it.  He further submitted that the orders dated 01.11.2012 and 14.12.2012 of the District Forum, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld.

9.              The perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that when the complaint for the first time was taken up on 12.09.2012, notice was ordered to be issued, to the Opposite Party,  for 26.09.2012. On 26.09.2012, Sh. T.K. Joshi, Counsel for the Opposite Party, put in appearance, and filed his vakalatnama, and the complaint was adjourned to 11.10.2012 and then to 01.11.2012,  subject to payment of costs, for filing the written version alongwith evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Party, but it did not file the same. On 01.11.2012, none appeared, on behalf of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the District Forum proceeded exparte, against the Opposite Party on 01.11.2012 and the case was adjourned to 15.11.2012, for oral arguments, of the complainant. On 15.11.2012, an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 01.11.2012, was moved by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, and the case was adjourned to 27.11.2012, for reply and consideration, on the application. It is further evident, that on 27.11.2012,  reply to the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 01.11.2012, was filed by the complainant, and on the request of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, the case was adjourned to 14.12.2012, for consideration of the same. On 14.12.2012, the application for setting aside the exparte order was dismissed, on the ground, that  the District Forum was not vested with the power, to review/recall its own order. No doubt, earlier the Opposite Party, was granted dates for filing reply and evidence, with or without costs, yet, it did not file the same. The Opposite Party was, therefore, at fault, to some extent, of taking dates, but not filing the written version and evidence, by way of affidavit(s). At the same time, it could be said that reasonable opportunity was not granted to the Opposite Party, and principles of natural justice were not adhered to, in letter and spirit.  It is settled principle of law, that every lis, should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hypertechnicalities. In case, the impugned orders are not set aside, an irreparable injury is likely to occasion to the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard.

10.           In State Of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the  principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmade of justice and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. Further the object of all the Courts and the quasi Judicial Tribunals have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result on technicalities.

11.           The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. No injustice shall occasion to the complainant/respondent, in case, the exparte order dated 01.11.2012, is set aside, and an opportunity is granted to the Opposite Party, to submit its written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), so that the dispute, could be decided, on merits, one way or the other, by one Forum. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. When the procedural wrangles, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The orders impugned, thus, suffer from illegality, and are liable to be set aside.

12.           No doubt, delay has been caused, in the disposal of the complaint, on merits, on account of non-appearance of the Counsel for the Opposite Party, on 01.11.2012, the date fixed in the complaint. For causing delay, in the disposal of complaint, the Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner, is required to be burdened with costs. Accordingly, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, is burdened with costs of Rs.2300/-.     

13.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and respondent.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, the Revision Petition is accepted. The orders dated 01.11.2012 and 14.12.2012, rendered by the District Forum, are set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2300/-, by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, to the complainant/ respondent. The District Forum shall grant only one date to the Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner, to file its written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), and then decide the same, afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. The payment of costs, aforesaid, to the complainant/respondent, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of costs, aforesaid, shall be made, before filing the written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s). 

15.           The parties are directed to appear, before the District Forum (I) on 31.01.2013, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.

16.           The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 31.01.2013, at 10.30 A.M.

17.           Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.           The Revision Petition file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

January 21, 2013_

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg