Haryana

StateCommission

RP/39/2022

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP MALIK - Opp.Party(s)

TANIKA GOYAL

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.39   of 2022

 Date of Institution:07.07.2022

  Date  of  Decision:11.07.2022

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. DLF Valley, Panchkula plot No.F2/3 Sector-3, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula 134105 through its Authorised signatory/officer, email crmchandigarh@dlf.in
2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Registered Office DLF Gateway tower, Second floor, DLF city, Phase-III, Gurgaon122002,HaryanaIndia through its Manager/Authorized signatory/officer-in-charge/Director Sales and Marketing
3. The Club Manager Club House DLF Valley Panchkula Sector-3,Pinjore-KalkaUrban Complex,Panchkula-134105.

…..Petitioners

Versus

 

Sandeep Malik R/o H.No.E-7/27FF, DLF Valley Panchkula(Haryana).

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   

                   

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Rana proxy counsel for Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          As per order dated  21.01.2022 contained in letter No.236, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  09.05.2022 and 15.06.2022  in Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula vide which Opposite Parties-DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and others were  proceeded ex parte.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Sh. Rohit Rana proxy counsel for Mr.Kunal Dawar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  revisionist had also been properly perused and examined.

4.      While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Rohit Rana proxy counsel for Mr.Kunal Dawal, the learned counsel for the revisionists that notice of the complaint was issued on 08.04.2022 for 09.05.2022.  On 09.05.2022, report of the Assistant pertaining to service of notices issued to OPs was received, as per which notice issued to OP No.1 to 3 were received back with the report served, whereas notices issued to OP No.2 was not received back either served or unserved. It was wrongly observed that OPs were not interested to defend their case and proceeded against ex parte on 09.05.2022. The intimation with regard to the date fixed for appearance was given by OP to their counsel, however while noting the date in the diary the clerk of the counsel wrongly noted the same as 19.05.2022 instead of 09.05.2022.  Due to non appearance on the date fixed, the OPs were proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for 10.06.2022. The counsel moved an application for recalling of the order dated 09.05.2022 on 25.05.2022, which was also dismissed by the learned District Commission.  The non appearance before the ld. District Commission is not intentional but due to the reason mentioned above. Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that ex parte proceedings dated 09.05.2022 and recalling order dated 15.06.2022 may be set setting aside.

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against opposite parties as well as recalling order is also dismissed, 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 revisionists-O.Ps. are afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceedings dated 09.05.2022  and recalling order dated 15.06.2022 initiated against O.Ps.-petitioners are set aside subject to the payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Panchkula on  12.07.2022 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 judgement 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.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Panchkula.

 

11th  July, 2022                                                                   S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)