Haryana

StateCommission

RP/8/2021

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

Versus

RAHUL GAUTAM AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

30 Mar 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    08 of 2021

Date of Institution:        22.03.2021

Date of Decision:         30.03.2021

 

 

Amazon India (Correct name Amazon Seller Services Private Limited) Registered Office at Brigade Gateway 8^th Floor, 26/1, Director Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 India through its Authorised Signatory Shri Rahul Gautam.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

1.      Rahul Gautam, Advocate, Aged 22 years, son of Shri Ashok Gautam, Advocate, Resident of House No.154/4, R.K. Puram Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana.

…….Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Apple India Private Limited through its Managing Director/Manager, No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

…….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      M/s Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd through its Managing Director/Manager Kh. No.18//21, 19//25, 34//5, 6, 7/1 min 14/2/2, min 15/1, min 27, 35/1,7,8,9/1,9/2,10/1,10/2,11 min, 12,13,14 Village Jamalpur, Gurgaon, Haryana-122503.

……..Respondent No.3-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.

 

          The petitioner, who stood impleaded as opposite party No.3 in the complaint titled ‘Rahul Gautam Vs. M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd & two Ors. has filed the present revision for challenging the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

2.      While passing the impugned order, the District Commission passed the following order:

“Summon issued to OP no.3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. A period of more than one month has been lapsed, which means that summon issued to OP no.3 through registered post would have been served upon him. From the internet, a print has been taken regarding the registered post bearing Consignment No.RH468940373IN, vide which the notice was sent to OP no.3. From this consignment letter, it is clear that notice sent through registered post to OP no.3 has been delivered to him on 25.11.2020 and from this, it is clear that the service has been effected upon OP no.3. However, despite repeated calls since morning, no one is present on behalf of OP no.3. It is already 03:30 PM. No more wait is justified. So, OP no.3, is hereby proceeded against ex parte.”

 

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice of the complaint issued by the District Consumer Commission was received by the petitioner on 25.11.2020.  Thereafter, the legal team of the petitioner looked for an advocate to represent its case in the complaint.  Finally Shri Munish Sikri, Advocate was appointed by the petitioner as its counsel for appearing in the complaint, who was intimated by the petitioner to appear before the District Commission on 19.01.2021 but the said counsel inadvertently skipped to note the date because office clerk of the counsel for the petitioner was not regularly attending the office on account of non functioning of the courts due to COVID Pandemic.  The petitioner thus could not appear before the District Commission, which was a bonafide omission on the part of the petitioner.  Accordingly, learned District Commission passed the impugned order proceeding ex parte against the petitioner and the matter was thereafter posted for further hearing.  It is also submitted that the complaint now stands adjourned to 31.03.2021 for service of opposite party No.2.  It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the petitioner on 19.01.2021 before the District Commission was not intentional and in case impugned order is not set aside then the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.  Further, the petitioner is having a good case to defend before the District Commission. Prayer has accordingly been made for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner. 

4.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the District Commission to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to appear before the District Commission and file the Power of Attorney.  The petitioner shall appear before the District Commission on 31.03.2021 itself and file its Power of Attorney.  However, the District Commission shall grant atleast 10 days time for filing the written version. This order shall however be subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner-opposite party No.3 at the time of putting in appearance before the District Commission, which amount shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of complainant-Rahul Gautam, Advocate.

5.      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. 

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

                                                                                               

Announced 30.03.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

 

 

 

UK