BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

RP NO.2/2016 AGAINST IA NO.184/2014 IN CC NO.193/2014

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR

Between:

1)       H.D.F.C. Bank, Rep. by its Manager,

          H.No.1-1060/3, I & III Floors,

          Suryodaya, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

2)       The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,

          Karimnagar, Rep. by A.Raja, Manager,

          R/o Hyderabad.

… Revision Petitioners/

Petitioners/Opposite parties

And

Shaik Abdul Khader Javed

S/o Hussaini, aged 43 years,

Occ: Self employee, R/o 3-5-18,

Sawaran Street, Govt. Girls Junior College Road,

Karimnagar.

…Respondent/

Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Petitioners                  :         M/s Lotus Law Associates

Counsel for the Respondent       :         Respondent-in-person                                           

Coram                   :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla      …       President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao        …       Member

Wednesday, the Seventh day of September

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

1)       This is a revision filed by the Petitioners who are the Opposite parties, against the orders dated 10.07.2015 passed in IA No.184/2014 in CC No.193/2014 by the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar in dismissing the petition.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the forum below.

3)       It is the case of Petitioners that they filed an application before the forum below under Section-151 of CPC praying to permit the Petitioners/Opposite parties to file proof affidavit and documents on their behalf since they were set exparte.  It is contended that as they could not inform the date of hearing to their counsel within time, there was no representation on 12.12.2014 on their behalf and hence they were set exparte. 

4)       The Respondent/Complainant having served with notice, did not chose to resist the petition averments of the revision petitioner.  Be that as it may, it is the case of the Respondent/Complainant before the forum below that he purchased 42 two-wheelers from the Petitioners/Opposite parties on e-bay website for his livelihood through online service.  Though he paid the total value of 42 vehicles, the Petitioners failed to deliver all the relevant and essential documents to him.  As a result of which, he has to keep the vehicles in the yard by paying Rs.30/- per day as there were no documents to those vehicles and the Respondent/Complainant has to bear this financial burden for no fault on his part. 

5)       On account of non-furnishing the relevant documents of the above vehicles, the police started suspecting the Respondent/Complainant and have been making frequent visits to the yard and suspecting them to be stolen vehicles, which is causing much pain and hardship, which amounts to deficiency of service.  Having failed to appear on the date of hearing, the forum below set the Petitioners exparte and proceeded with the matter.  Thereupon, the Petitioners came-up with the application seeking permission to file proof affidavit and documents on their behalf, which the forum below discarded on the ground that it has no powers to review or revive its own orders.

6)       The point that arises for consideration is whether the forum below erred in dismissing the interlocutory application which is under challenge in this revision; to what relief?

7)       A perusal of the orders passed by the forum below would go to show that in crystal clear terms, it exercised its powers and dismissed the petition in view of it having no powers either to review or revive its own order.  We agree with the finding of the forum below on this aspect in totality.  However, it is to be stated that the case of the Respondent/Complainant has to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities.  It is well settled principle of law that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.  Legal maxim, audi alteram partem, clearly mandates to hear the other side.  Without hearing the other side, it may not be possible to adjudicate the matter in dispute in an effective manner.  Admittedly, the Respondent/Complainant has not chosen to appear and deny the averments of the Petitioners/Opposite parties to benefit himself.  On the other hand, the Petitioners/Opposite parties approached the forum below on 31.12.2014 with a gap of (19) days with a petition seeking permission to permit them to file their proof affidavit along with documents, having been set exparte on 12.12.2014.

8)       Evidently, the Petitioners/Opposite parties failed to make their appearance and file the written version when the matter was posted as such, but at later stage, they came-up with a petition seeking permission to file their proof affidavit along with documents.  The same was not accepted by the forum below since the Petitioners were already set exparte and in view of the fact that it had no powers to review or revive its own order.  Fairly, the Petitioners/Opposite parties admitted that since they failed to inform the date of hearing to their counsel within time, resulting in non-representation of the matter on 12.12.2014 compelling the forum below to set them exparte.  At any rate, this could be a bonafide ground to set-aside the ex-parte order, may be the District Forum had no jurisdiction. 

9)       In the result the revision is allowed setting aside order of the District Forum, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant.  However, the Petitioners/Opposite parties shall file their proof affidavit along with documents within a (15) days from this day and on such filing, the District Forum is directed to proceed according to law. 

                                                               PRESIDENT                    MEMBER

                                                           Dt.07.09.2016

​