STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 07.05.2024
Date of first hearing: 17.05.2024
Date of pronouncement: 17.05.2024
Revision Petition No.31 of 2024
1. Rentokil PCI Pest Control Services, through its authorized representative Mr. Hoshiyar Singh Radhore, having its head office at SCO 353, 1st Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal, Haryana, Phone No. 9729164664.
2. Rentokil PCI Grover Market Shop No. C-3, Grover Market, Hisar, near Bus Stand, Hisar, Phone No. 9816503920. .….Revisionists
Versus
Sandeep Bharadwaj S/o Sh. Ishwar Bharadwaj, R/o H.No. 2259, Sector 9-11, Hisar, Haryana-125005 in Mobile -7988572698. ….Respondent
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Ms. Manjula, Member.
Present:- Mr. Harshit Kakani, counsel for the revisionists.
O R D E R
PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
In this revision petition; revisionists/OPs have challenged order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-A-3) passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Hisar, vide which OPs were proceeded against ex-parte. Subsequent order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-A-5) passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Hisar has also been challenged, vide which application so filed by revisionists to set aside ex-parte order dated 22.09.2023, too has been dismissed. Learned counsel for revisionists has contended that non-appearance of revisionists on material day (22.09.2023) was neither intentional nor it was accentuated by any mala-fide as their written statement was duly prepared and signed by authorized person of respondents. It is urged that there is no mala fide intention on behalf of revisionists to delay the proceedings of complaint case before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Hisar. It is urged that OPs No. 1 & 2 have wrongly listened that case fixed is 22.11.2023. When they tried to know about status of complaint then they came to know that case was actually fixed for 22.09.2023 and owing to their absence on 22.09.2023; they were proceeded against ex-parte. Learned counsel has further contended that reason quoted by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Hisar that it has no power to set aside ex-parte order, is wrong and illegal.
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-Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj (complainant) in order to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal off main complaint presently pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar. 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-Hisar is still sub-judice and pending; therefore, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj) in case, revisionists are now 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 both impugned orders viz. order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-A-3) and order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-A-5) passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar in Complaint Case No.251 of 2023 titled as Sandeep Bhardwaj Vs. Rentokil PCI Pest Control etc. are hereby set aside. Revisionists (Rentokil PCI Pest Control-OPs in Complaint Case No. 251 of 2023) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission on 31.05.2024, either through their authorized representative or through counsel. It would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,500/- to be deposited by revisionists-Rentokil PCI Pest Control in District Legal Services Authority-Hisar and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.251 of 2023) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar. After putting of appearance by revisionists-Rentokil PCI Pest Control on 31.05.2024 on the force of this order; learned District Consumer Commission would grant revisionists (Rentokil PCI Pest Control) just one effective opportunity for the purpose of filing its written statement/version. This Revision petition is accordingly allowed in above terms.
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 17th May, 2024
Manjula Naresh Katyal Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-I Addl. Bench-I
