Haryana

StateCommission

RP/56/2020

UCO BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHTASH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SURINDER SINGH DUHAN

11 Nov 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No:   56 of 2020

Date of Institution:       03.11.2020

Date of Decision :        11.11.2020

 

 

UCO Bank Julana, Tehsil Julana, District Jind through its Branch Manager.

 

                                      ……Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Rohtash aged 36 years son of Puran Singh, resident of Garva P.O. Bahal, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani, Mobile No.9991420492

 

……Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office: “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

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

 

3.      Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Jind.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member                   

 

 

Present:              Shri Surinder Singh Duhan, counsel for the petitioner. 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          For the reasons stated therein, the miscellaneous application No.214 of 2020 is accepted and the petitioner is permitted to place on record the certified copy of the impugned order passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind.

2.      The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 47 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Jind whereby it was proceeded against ex parte in the Consumer Complaint No.313 of 2019 titled ‘Rohtash Vs. UCO Bank & Others’.

3.      A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner, who was arrayed as opposite party No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte as it did not put in appearance despite the fact that it stood served.  

4.      As per the record, the complaint was presented on 19.11.2019 and notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties including the petitioner for 10.01.2020 for their appearance and submission of written version.  On 10.01.2020 notice issued to the petitioner was not received back either served or unserved. Since mandatory period of 30 days had expired and notice had not been received  back, the petitioner was presumed to have been duly served.  Despite the same, it did not put in appearance.  The case was called repeatedly since morning and after waiting sufficiently long, learned District Consumer Commission was of the view that further wait was not justified.  Accordingly, the District Consumer Commission had no option except to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. 

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not received the notice of the complaint and as such, it could not put in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission.  He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the proceedings and file the written version in case one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner.  It is also submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant now stands adjourned to 19.11.2020 for filing of written version by the remaining opposite parties.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner, the State Commission is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted one more chance for joining the proceedings and filing the written version.

7.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity for putting in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission on 19.11.2020 and file the written version.  The order is however subject to costs of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant while putting in appearance before the learned District Consumer Commission.

8.      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.  

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Consumer Commission as well as to the parties.

 

 

Announced 11.11.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK