Haryana

StateCommission

RP/6/2023

ANSAL HOUSING LTD . - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH VERMA

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

  Date of Instituion:11.01.2023

                Date of final hearing:19.01.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 19.01.2023

 

Revision Petition No.06 of 2023

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Ansal Housing Limited (Formerly Ansal Housing and Construction Limited) Regd. Office at Ansal Plaza Mall, 2^nd Floor, Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P-201010 through authorized person Mr. Vaibhav Choudhary s/o Sh. Subhash Choudhary.

                                                                                      .….Petitioner.

Through counsel Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, R/o Village Kutana, District Rohtak.

….Respondent.

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Ashish Verma, counsel for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

                    There is a delay of 135 days in filing of the present revision petition and condonation of which has been sought through an application by the present petitioner. The ground taken in the application on behalf of petitioner is that the legal documents and certified copy of the impugned order could not available with the present petitioner within the prescribed limitation duration as well as due to departmental process the delay has been occurred, which may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the circumstances of the case.

2.               While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the learned District Commission while passing the impugned order, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law.

3.                While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the works “Sufficient Cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as “State of Nagaland Vs. Limpk A.O. and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752” has held as under:-

“11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975) (2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari  (Air 1969 SC 575) as Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

4.               In the instant case the learned District Commission has passed the impugned order by ignoring the fact that the notice issued to opposite party has not been served and therefore we think, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 135 days in filing of present revision petition is hereby condoned.

5.                Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 18.10.2021 in Consumer Complaint No.236 of 2021, whereby the present petitioner-opposite party (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and with his kind assistance contents of the revision petition has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case the impugned order dated 18.10.2021 is not set-aside. He further argued that learned District Commission issued notice vide its order dated 16.06.2021 for 04.08.2021, but due to outbreak of corona virus, proceedings were not conducted and the case was adjourned for 18.10.2021. Thereafter, on 18.10.2021, due to some miscommunication, the counsel engaged by the present petitioner, could not appeared on 18.10.2021 and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against it. He further argued that learned District Commission, while passing the order dated 18.10.2021, failed to appreciate that the notice issued to that notice issued to the present petitioner was not received back. He further argued that non appearance of present petitioner before learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful, but was purely for the reasons mentioned above and the order dated 18.10.2021 be set-aside and present revision petition may please be allowed.

8.                In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that the present petitioner-OP was proceeded against ex-parte by learned District Commission vide order dated 18.10.2021 as it failed to appear, but, as we all know that it is better if rights of parties interest be decided on merits instead of technicalities and it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The respondent-complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the present petitioner-OP is afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, order dated 18.10.2021, passed by learned District Commission, Rohtak, vide which present petitioner-OP was proceeded against ex-parte is hereby set-aside and the present revision petition stands allowed subject to the condition that the present petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as of costs in the Legal Aid Account of The State Commission. Let, the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file its reply and to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.

9.                The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Rohtak on 28.02.2023 for further proceedings.

10.              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 27^th June, 2002.

11.              Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Commission, Rohtak.

12.              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.

13.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 19^th January, 2023                                                 S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl. Bench

 

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                          Member         

R.K                                                                                                        Addl. Bench