STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
Date of Instituion:03.11.2023
Date of final hearing: 16.11.2023
Date of pronouncement: 16.11.2023
Revision Petition No.81 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Kurukshetra SCO No. 66, City Centre, 1st Floor, HUDA, Sector-17, above SBBJ, Kurukshetra-136118.
Presently filed through Mr. Viren Chaudhary, Executive Legal & Recovery, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Branch Office at SCO No.71, Top Floor, Sector-40-C, Chandigarh.
.…. Petitioner.
Through counsel Mr. S.C. Thatai, Advocate
Versus
1. Satpal S/o Shri Phool Singh R/o Village Gobindgarh, Post Office Barout, Tehsil Ladwa District Kurukshetra.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.2463-2464, IInd Floor, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh-160022 through its Manager.
Respondents.
CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. S.C. Thatai, counsel for the petitioner.
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 371 days in filing of the present revision petition is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 26.07.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.176 of 2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurkshetra vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.2 (‘OP’) was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. S.C. Thatai, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. S.C. Thatai, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that notice/summon of the complaint was served upon the present petitioner-opposite party No.2-company and the same were received by Shri Kamal Sharma, Branch Manager, who inadvertently did not inform about the same to either the concerned legal executive of the company or to the empaneled counsel of the present petitioner-opposite party No.2-company. Thereafter, Shri Kamal Sharma, Branch Manager was shifted to Australia due to which present petitioner-opposite party No.2 did not know about the pendency of the present case. Resultantly, present petitioner-opposite party No.2 could not appear before the learned district commission. He further argued that it was only in the second week of September, 2023 when legal executive called present petitioner-opposite party No.2 only then they came to know about the pendency of the consumer complaint before the district commission and present petitioner-opposite party No.2 were already proceeded against ex-parte by learned district Commission vide order dated 26.07.2022. He further argued that non-appearance of present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that order dated 26.07.2022, passed by learned District Commission may be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed.
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated before learned District Commission against the present petitioner-OP No.2, 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 present petitioner-OP No.2 is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 26.07.2022, passed by learned District Commission, Kurukshetra, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against OP No.2- present petitioner is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to depositing of Rs.5,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner-OP No.2 to the complainant before learned district commission, Kurukshetra. Let, the present petitioner-OP No.2 be afforded an opportunity to appear before learned District Commission and to file its reply as well as to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.
6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra on 08.12.2023 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 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, 2002.
8. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. 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.
10. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 16th November, 2023
S.P. Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench
