This Revision Petition has been filed by the HDFC Bank, the Opposite Party in Complaint No.469/2012 against order dated 25.09.2013, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum, Gurgaon on 04.01.2013, proceeding ex parte against them. It appears that the Petitioner challenged the said order before the State Commission in R.P. No.37/2013. Vide order dated 26.07.2013, the State Commission set aside order dated 04.01.2013, with a direction that the petitioner deposits in the District Forum, Gurgaon a sum of `5,000/-, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 30.7.2013, and thereafter, the same would be paid to the complainant. It was directed that in case the costs are not deposited, order dated 04.01.2013 would stand revived. The Petitioner failed to deposit the said amount by 30.07.2013. On 31.07.2013, an application was moved on behalf of the Petitioner, seeking permission to deposit the costs. It was stated that order of the State Commission was received only on 30.07.2013 at about 4 PM and, therefore, requisite deposit could not be made. No orders were made on the said application and the same was directed to be listed on the date fixed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed yet another Revision Petition (Revision Petition/82/2013) before the State Commission praying for setting aside of order passed by the District Forum, proceeding ex parte against the Petitioner. As noted above, by the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that it does not have powers of Review. Hence, this Revision Petition. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that since order dated 26.07.2013, made by the State Commission, was issued only on 30.07.2013, it was humanly impossible to comply with the same and make deposit in terms thereof on the same date itself at Gurgaon. In support of his submission, learned counsel has invited our attention to the endorsement made by the office of the State Commission, which shows that the copy of the order was prepared only on 30.7.2013. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that because of negligence on the part of the Petitioner in not entering appearance before the District Forum in the first instance and thereafter not complying with the order passed by the State Commission, the Respondent/Complainant is being subjected to unnecessary harassment. Having considered the matter in the light of the aforesaid factual scenario, we are of the view that in order to cut short the life of litigation, it would be just and proper to set aside the order passed by the District Forum on 04.01.2013, proceeding ex parte against the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner paying to the Respondent a sum of `10,000/- as costs, which amount would be inclusive of the amount already directed to be paid by the State Commission. The said payment shall be made to the respondent before the District Forum before the next date of hearing. We grant two weeks’ time to the Petitioner to file their written version in the complaint. Rejoinder, if necessary, may be filed by the Complainant within two weeks thereafter. We request the District Forum to try to dispose of the Complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from today. Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms. |
