Haryana

StateCommission

RP/29/2020

HERO MOTOCORP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHISH PAL - Opp.Party(s)

RAJ K NARANG

13 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No:   29 of 2020

Date of Institution:       26.02.2020

Date of Decision:        13.03.2020

 

 

Hero MotoCorp Ltd., Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

 

                                      …Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Shish Pal son of Shri Shanti Sarup, aged 43 years, resident of Village Akalgarh Ka Majra, Kahnri Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

 

…Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Khanna Automobiles, Opposite Aggersain College, Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri, through its proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

…Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member                           

 

 

Present:     Shri Raj K. Narang, counsel for the petitioner. 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          Hero MotoCorp Limited, who was opposite party No.2 in the complaint titled ‘Shish Pal Vs. Khanna Automobiles and another’, has filed the present revision under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it has sought setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum ordered for proceeding ex parte against opposite party No.2 as none had put in appearance on its behalf or filed the Power of Attorney on 07.01.2020.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the complaint in question, notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.11.2019 for 16.12.2019. On 16.12.2019, one Mrs. Seema Sehgal, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner instructed her that it would appoint the Advocate as per the company policy. Shri Vijay Chamrori, Advocate was thereafter engaged for representing the petitioner, who reached the learned District Forum for filing the memo of appearance but at that time learned District Forum had not started functioning. Accordingly, Shri Vijay Chamrori, Advocate instructed his associate Advocate to file memo of appearance before the learned District Forum as he had to go to another Court. His associate when reached before the learned District Forum for filing the memo of appearance, noticed that Mrs. Seema Sehgal had already filed memo of appearance and matter was fixed for filing Power of Attorney and reply. For seeking further instructions, the associate Advocate tried to contact Shri Vijay Chamrori but failed to inform him and seek instructions due to some personal difficulty and during the course of time, Mrs. Seema Sehgal filed Power of Attorney for opposite party No.1 only. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, it was proceeded against ex parte. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the learned District Forum stand adjourned to 30.03.2020 for final arguments and giving liberty to both the parties to place any more document in evidence.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is still at its initial stage and it would be just and proper, if the complaint is decided on merits as that would not cause any harm to the complainant. Prayer has accordingly been made for setting aside the impugned order to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner.

5.      Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner but keeping in view ends of justice it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set aside to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner and the petitioner permitted to join the proceedings, file its written version and lead the evidence.

6.      Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted, impugned order dated 07.01.2020 passed by learned District Forum to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to join the proceedings in the complaint, filing written version and recording its evidence. The order is, however, subject to costs of `10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner while putting in appearance before the learned District Forum on 30.03.2020, to be paid to the complainant.

7.      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.  

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the learned District Forum as well as to the petitioner.

 

 

 

Announced 13.03.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

DR