STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Revision Petition No.14 of 2022
Date of Institution:30.03.2022
Date of Decision:08.04.2022
- Panjab University, Chandigarh, through its Registrar, Sector-14, Chandigarh.
- Director, Physical Education & Sports-cum-Secretary, PUSC, Sector-14, Chandigarh.
…..Petitioners
Versus
- Suman (Judo Player) Aged about 24 years
D/o Shri Vijender Singh, r/o H.No.922, Sector-27, Panchkula (Haryana). - Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab through its Registrar.
- Director, Sports, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member
Present:- Mr.Dinesh Kumar Authorised Representative of the petitioners.
ORDER
S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 11.02.2022 in Consumer Complaint No.516 of 2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula vide which Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 were proceeded ex parte.
2. The argument has been advanced by Mr. Dinesh Kumar professor the authorized representative of 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.
3. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Mr.Dinesh Kumar, the Authorized representative (AR) for the revisionist that inadvertently AR had wrongly noted down the date as 21.02.2022 instead of 11.02.2022. On 21.02.2022,when AR appeared before the District Commission for filing reply on behalf of Panjab University, came to know that University has already been proceeded ex parte on 11.02.2022. Therefore, non appearance of professor Dinesh Kumar on 11.02.2022 was un-intentional, inadvertent and bonafide.
Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that ex parte proceeding dated 11.02.2022 may be set setting aside.
4. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceeding was initiated against opposite party Nos.3 and 4, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned parties before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P. Nos.3 and 4 are afforded an opportunity to defend itself before the learned District Commission, so in these circumstances, ex parte proceeding dated 11.02.2022 initiated against O.P. Nos.3 and 4-petitioners are set aside. Revision Petition is allowed qua petitioners. Let the petitioners be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Panchkula on 11.04.2022 for further proceedings.
6. This revision petition has been 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 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.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Panchkula.
08th April, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik S. P. Sood Member Judicial Member
S.K
(Pvt. Secy.)
