Haryana

StateCommission

RP/70/2019

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAJ PARKASH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

Revision Petition No :  70 of 2019

Date of Institution:        14.08.2019

Date of Decision :        26.08.2019

 

 

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt, through Shri Vikramjeet Bhamra, Associate Vice President.

 

2.      Kotak Mahindra Bank, Registered Office, 27, BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 through Shri Vikramjeet Bhamra, Associate Vice President.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      Suraj Parkash son of Lakhi Singh, resident of House No.10, Shiv Pratap Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Blue Dart Express Limited, Mohra, Ambala Cantt (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Manager.

Performa Respondent

 

                                   

 

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

                             Ms. Manjula, Member                   

 

 

Present:               Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for petitioners.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J. (ORAL)

 

          The petitioners, who are opposite parties No.1 and 2 in the complaint instituted by complainant Suraj Parkash has filed the present revision under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby they are seeking setting aside of the order dated 21.09.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum directed for proceeding ex parte against the revisionists as despite having been impliedly served, they did not put in appearance.

3.      According to the revisionists, they were never served in the complaint and therefore, the proceedings initiated against them by the complainant did not come to their notice.  Only when an empanelled counsel of the revisionists appeared in some other case before the learned District Forum, they came to know about the passing of the order dated 21.09.2018.  Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to obtain certified copy of the impugned order.  It is submitted that in case the revisionists are not heard in the complaint filed by the complainant, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury.   It is also submitted that the complaint is now pending before the learned District Forum for 10.09.2019 for recording evidence of opposite party No.3. Prayer has according been made for setting aside the impugned order to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the revisionists. 

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the revisionists and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission is of the view that it would be just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to set aside the order dated 21.09.2018 passed by the learned District Forum whereby the revisionists were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte so that they may participate in the proceedings arising out of the complaint instituted by Suraj Parkash and file the written version besides leading their evidence.

5.      Resultantly, the revision is accepted; order dated 21.09.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Ambala directing the revisionists for being proceeded against ex parte is set aside and the revisionists are permitted to join the proceedings in the complaint instituted by the complainant and file the written version besides leading their evidence.  This order shall however be subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the revisionists to complainant Suraj Parkash on 10.09.2019 at the time of putting in appearance before the learned District Forum.

6.      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 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.          

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced 26.08.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK