Haryana

StateCommission

RP/68/2023

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMTKAMLESH PANCHAL - Opp.Party(s)

PANCHAM SHARMA

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA  

                                                                  Date of Institution: 11.08.2023

                Date of hearing: 08.08.2024

                      Date of pronouncement: 08.08.2024

                                               

Revision Petition No.68 of 2023

 

Union Bank of India, a body constituted under the banking Company; (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. V of 1970 having its head office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having its branch all over India amongst other places at Karnal Main Branch, Karnal, Haryana through Sh. Mayank Mittal, its constituted attorney and Principal Officer.

.….Petitioner

Versus

 

Smt. Kamlesh Panchal w/o Late Sh. Bijender Panchal, R/o H.No. 1315/12, Janta Colony, Behind LG Showroom, Sonipat, Haryana.                    ….Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member. 

         

Present:-    Mr. Pancham Sharma, counsel for petitioner.

 

O R D E R

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                             In this revision petition; petitioner has challenged order dated 12.05.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Sonipat vide which application filed by revisionist for setting aside ex-parte order dated 06.01.2023 has been declined.

2.                Complaint No. 503 of 2022 titled Smt. Kamlesh Panchal Vs. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat. During proceedings of said complaint, vide order dated 06.01.2023 revisionist- Union Bank of India was proceeded against ex-parte. It filed application dated 06.02.2023 for setting aside ex-parte order dated 06.01.2023 and request of revisionist has been declined by learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat through its impugned order dated 12.05.2023.

3.       Feeling dissatisfied, this revision petition has been filed.

4.       On subjectively and critically analyzing revisionist’s contentions, this Commission is of firm opinion that there is no need to issue notice of revision petition to respondent-Kamlesh Panchal (complainant) in order to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of main complaint presently pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat. Of course, it will also save all parties to this lis from the burden of unnecessary expenses.

5.                Since, complaint pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat, as contended by learned counsel for revisionist, is still at the stage of leading evidence, therefore, this Commission is of opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Smt. Kamlesh Panchal) in case revisionist is allowed to join proceedings of complaint case and granted liberty to tender its defence/written version. This Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that: it is no more res-integra by now that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same and technicalities should not come in front of imparting substantial justice to parties by deciding their lis on merits. 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 before this Commission.

6.                In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 06.01.2023 and 12.05.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat in Complaint Case No. 503 of 2022 titled Smt. Kamlesh Panchal Vs. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India are hereby set aside. This Revisionist (Union Bank of India-OP in Complaint Case No. 503 of 2022) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat on 30.08.2024, either through its authorized representative or through counsel and would tender its defence/written version on same day (30.08.2024). It would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by revisionist- Union Bank of India in District Legal Services Authority-Sonepat and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.503 of 2022) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat. Payment of cost amount of Rs.10,000/- would be the condition precedent for tendering defence by revisionist. Thereafter, learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat would proceed in the complaint as per law.

7.                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.

8.                File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced on 08^th August, 2024.

 

                                                                        S.C. Kaushik                  Naresh Katyal                                                                 Member                          Judicial Member

                                                         Addl. Bench                   Addl. Bench

D.K.