STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:03.11.2023
Date of final hearing: 15.11.2023
Date of pronouncement: 15.11.2023
Revision Petition No.82 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Having its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001.
.…. Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate
Versus
1. Mr. Rakesh S/o Shri Om Prakash R/o Village Khatiwas, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana-124103.
2. Global Automobiles through Authorized Signatory, 5KM Stine, VPO Karontha, NH-71, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
Respondents.
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for the petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 17 days in filing of the present revision petition is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 19.07.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.2 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that notice/summon of the complaint was never served on the registered of the present petitioner-opposite party No.2 and it notice was sent only to the Manufacturing Plant of the petitioner-opposite party No.2 who was new and did not know what to do with the notice and the staff has not forwarded the said notice/summons to the Corporate team of the petitioner-opposite party No.2 as such they was not aware above the fact that a consumer complaint is pending before the learned district Commission. It is further argued that on 29.08.2023 it has come to the knowledge of the present petitioner from its local Advocate about the pendency of the consumer complaint before learned district commission and also came to know that ex-parte proceedings have already been initiated against the present petitioner-opposite party No.2 vide impugned order dated 19.07.2023. He further argued that non-appearance of present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that order dated 19.07.2023, passed by learned District Commission may be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed.
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated before learned District Commission against the present petitioner-OP No.2, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the present petitioner-OP No.2 is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 19.07.2023, passed by learned District Commission, Charkhi Dadri, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against OP No.2- present petitioner is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to depositing of Rs.5,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner-OP No.2 to the complainant before learned district commission, Charkhi Dadri. Let, the present petitioner-OP No.2 be afforded an opportunity to appear before learned District Commission and to file its reply as well as to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.
6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Charkhi Dadri on 05.12.2023 for further proceedings.
7. 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 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, 2002.
8. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
10. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 15th November, 2023
S.P. Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench
