Delhi

StateCommission

RP/106/2018

M/S BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJINDER KUMAR CHABRA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH JANGRA

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                       

Revision Petition No. 106/2018

 

(Arising out of the order dated 26.11.2015 passed in complaint case No. 739/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Janakpuri, Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Netaji Subhash Palace

Pitampura, Aggarwal Metro Height

Eleven Floor, New Delhi-110088                     …….Petitioner

 

Versus

 

1. Rajinder Kumar Chabra

S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta

R/o 14/31-B, Tilak Nagar

West Delhi, New Delhi-110018

 

2. Vandana Enterprises

D-115-116, Fateh Nagar

Jail Road, New Delhi-110018

 

3. Manager

Indian Bank

Tilak Nagar

New Delhi-110018                         .........Respondents

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                   -                       PRESIDENT

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                         Yes

 

Dated: 12^th December 2018

 

ORDER

 

1.           By way of this revision petition prayer is made for recalling of order dated 26.11.2015 passed by Ld. District Forum III Janakpuri in Complaint Case No. 739/2014 by which petitioner herein i.e. OP-2 before District Forum has been proceeded ex-parte. 
2.           The aforesaid order reads as under:

“26/11/2015

CC-739/14

Present:

OP-1 & OP-2 are proceeded ex-parte.

Put up on 7/4/16 for rejoinder and evidence of complainant.”

 

3.           It is stated that a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was filed by respondent-1 herein i.e. complainant before District Forum making allegations against petitioner/OP-2 that petitioner/OP-2 had wrongly deducted EMI from his bank account. It is stated that petitioner/OP-2 was served and had filed written statement also on 17.07.2015. It is stated that after filing written statement counsel for petitioner/OP-2 had intimated the next date to its officials. Petitioner/OP-2 was made to believe that its counsel had been attending proceedings regularly therefore petitioner/OP-2 was under the bonafide impression that their counsel was attending the case. It is stated that on 01.06.2018 when another counsel of petitioner/OP-2 went to attend some other matter, he found that no one had appeared in the aforesaid case before District Forum. Accordingly the said counsel had informed petitioner/OP-2, thereafter, the counsel who was attended the matter was contacted but he did not cooperate with the officials of petitioner/OP-2. Due to conduct of the counsel, Petitioner/OP-2 appointed another counsel who inspected the court file and applied for certified copy and came to know that the petitioner/OP-2 had been proceeded ex-parte.
4.           It is submitted that due to lapse on the part of counsel for petitioner/OP-2, its valuable right to defend the case has been defeated. It is submitted that petitioner/OP-2 be not allowed to suffer due to default on the part of its counsel.      It is submitted that petitioner/OP-2 has a good case on merits and non appearance on 26.11.2015 was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to reasons stated above.
5.           Respondent-1/complainant is present in person. He has not opposed the prayer made in the petition except for costs as he has stated that much delay has been caused. A separate statement of respondent-1/complainant is also recorded.
6.           In view of reasoning given as well as with the consent of respondent-1/complainant and also considered that a great prejudice shall be caused to petitioner/OP-2 in case the impugned order is not set aside.  I hereby allow the present petition and set aside the order dated 26.11.2015 and allow petitioner/OP-2 to file its evidence by way of affidavit before the District Forum on the date already fixed i.e. 17.01.2017 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/- to respondent-1/complainant.
7.           It may be mentioned that respondent-2/OP-1 has also been proceeded ex-parte vide order under challenge. Counsel for respondent-2/OP-1 is present who has stated that respondent-2/OP-1 was never served with the complaint case and only on the notice being served upon respondent-2/OP-1 in respect of present petition, respondent-2/OP-1 has come to know about the complaint case and that the respondent-2/OP-1 having been proceeded ex-parte in the said case.
8.           Since the impugned order has been set aside, in the interest of justice respondent-2/OP-1 is also allowed to contest the complaint case before District Forum otherwise instead of allowing him to file separate petition. Respondent-1/complainant has no objection in this regard. Let respondent-2/OP-1 to file written statement before District Forum on 17.01.2019.
9.            Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
10.  Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.
11.  A copy of the order be also sent to the District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

•