Haryana

StateCommission

RP/9/2021

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIYA DESWAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

02 Apr 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    09 of 2021

Date of Institution:       24.03.2021

Date of Decision:         02.04.2021

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, India through its authorized signatory Shri Rahul Sundaram.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Priya Deswal w/o Jitender Deswal s/o Shri Jasbir Deswal, resident of B-882 & B-822A, Ansal Sushant City, Panipat, District Panipat, Haryana.

…….Respondent No.1-Complainant

2.      Kings International, C-38, Wazirpur Industrial Area Road, New Delhi, Delhi-110052.

…….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

Present:     Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

          Opposite party No.1-Amazon Seller Services Private Limited has filed the present revision for challenging the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte in the complaint titled ‘Priya Deswal Versus Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and another’.

2.      The impugned order reads as under:

“Notice sent to OPs through registered post on 07.10.2020 but neither the registered cover nor due acknowledgment received back either “served” or “unserved”. A period of more than 30 days has already elapsed. Case called several times since morning, but none has appeared on behalf of OPs. It is already 3.50 P.M. No further wait is justified. Hence, respondents are hereby proceeded against ex parte.

Now, the case is adjourned to 08.01.2021 for evidence of complainant.”

 

3.      According to the petitioner the District Commission had fixed 16.11.2020 for appearance of the parties including the petitioner in the aforementioned complaint. However, the petitioner was not aware of the same as summons were not served upon it.  As such, no one appeared before the District Consumer Commission on behalf of the petitioner on the date fixed i.e. 16.11.2020. It was only on 25.01.2021 that the petitioner discovered from the records of the complaint on confonet.nic.in that it had been proceeded against ex parte on 16.11.2020 owing to non-appearance on its behalf and the matter adjourned for further proceedings to 08.01.2021. It is also stated that the failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 16.11.2020 was not on account of any fault of the petitioner. It was also neither willful nor wanton. It has a valid defence to contest the complaint and therefore another opportunity be granted to the petitioner to make a representation in the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner shall be highly prejudiced in case it is not allowed to make any representation in its defence, which shall cause injustice to the petitioner. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the complainant in case the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner allowed to defend, which will lead to disposal of the case in just and equitable manner.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complaint now stands adjourned to 11.05.2021 for recording evidence of the complainant.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice shall be suitably met, if the revision is accepted, impugned order set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the District Consumer Commission and file the Power of Attorney and written version in the complaint.

6.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the District Consumer Commission while proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, is set aside and one more opportunity granted to the petitioner to appear before the District Consumer Commission on 11.05.2021 and file Power of Attorney and written version. The order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission on 11.05.2021, which amount shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of complainant Priya Deswal.      

7.      This revision petition is being 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 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 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^th, 2002. 

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Consumer Commission as well as to the parties.

                                                                                               

Announced 02.04.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President