STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 14.05.2024
Date of hearing: 05.07.2024
Date of pronouncement: 05.07.2024
Revision Petition No.32 of 2024
1. FCM Travel Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. SCO 14-15, First Floor, Sector-9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160009 (U.T.) through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s FCM Travel Solution India Pvt. Ltd., 601-B, Skyline Icon, Chimatpada, off Andheri Kurla Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400059 through its authorized signatory. .….Petitioners
Versus
Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Village Machhar Heri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana. ….Respondent
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Ms. Manjula, Member.
Present:- Mr. Vipin Kumar, counsel for petitioners.
O R D E R
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
In this revision petition; petitioners has challenged order dated 18.04.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Kaithal vide which OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that non-appearance of revisionist on material day (18.04.2024) was neither intentional nor it was accentuated by any mala-fide. Non-appearance of revisionist on 18.04.2024 before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Kaithal has occasioned because petitioners came to know about the status of complaint and impugned order only on 27.04.2024, when they were checking status of other pending cases online at confonet.nic.in.
2. On subjectively and critically analyzing above contentions, this Commission is of opinion that there is no need to issue notice of revision to respondent-Ravinder Singh (complainant) in order to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal off main complaint presently pending before learned District Consumer Commission, Kaithal. Of course, it will also save the parties to this lis to the burden of unnecessary expenses.
3. Since, complaint pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Kaithal, as contended by learned counsel for revisionist, is still at its initial stage, therefore, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Sh. Ravinder Singh) in case revisionists are allowed to join proceedings of complaint case. While observing so, this Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Further, in process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be afforded adequate opportunity to put forward his/her/its case in a meaningful manner. In case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another, Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007 AND case titled as M.O.H. Lathers Vs. United Commercial Bank Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001 both decided on 19.08.2011 reported in 2011 (4) PLR 274; Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “State Commission or District Consumer Forum do not have power to set aside their own ex-parte order nor they have power to review their own orders. This power vests in National Commission only by Section 22 (A) of the Act.” It would legally imply that ex-parte order passed by learned District Consumer Commission can be legally assailed by filing revision petition.
4. In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Kaithal in Complaint Case No.318 of 2023 titled as Sh. Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s FCM Travel Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another is hereby set aside. This Revision petition is accordingly allowed. Revisionists (M/s FCM Travel Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another.-OPs No.1 & 2 in Complaint Case No. 318 of 2023) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission on 17.07.2024, either through its authorized representative or through counsel. It would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited by revisionists- M/s FCM Travel Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another in District Legal Services Authority-Kaithal and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.318 of 2023) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Kaithal. After putting its appearance by revisionists on 17.07.2024 on the force of this order; learned District Consumer Commission would grant revisionists just one effective opportunity for the purpose of filing its written statement/version.
5. A copy of this order be provided to all parties, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.
6. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced on 5th July, 2024
Manjula Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-I Addl. Bench-I
D.K.
