State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra & Mahindra vs M/S Surya Hatchery on 7 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry Heading1 Heading2 Revision Petition No. RP/79/2023 ( Date of Filing : 25 Oct 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/129/2023 of District Kurukshetra) 1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUIDING ,APPOLLO BUNDER MUMBAI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S SURYA HATCHERY M/S SURYA HATCHERY THROUGH MANPREET NARWAL 42/3 WARD NO 5 NEELKANTH COLONY LADWA DISTRICT KURUSHETRA HARYANA 2. KBS MOTORS KBS MOTORS THROUGH ITS MANAGER TEPLA AMBALA JAGADHRI ROAD AMBALA , HARYANA AMBALA HARYANA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: S . P . Sood PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 07 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA Date of Instituion:30.10.2023 Date of final hearing: 07.11.2023 Date of pronouncement: 07.11.2023 Revision Petition No.79 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Having its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001. ..... Petitioner. Through counsel Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate Versus 1. M/s Surya Hatchery Through Manpreet Singh Narwal 42/3, Ward No.5, Neelkanth Colony, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-136132. 2. The Manager, KBS Motors, Village Tepla, Ambala-Jagadhari Road, Ambala, Haryana-133104. Respondents. CORAM: S.P. Sood, Judicial Member. Present:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for the petitioner. O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 29 days in filing of the present revision petition is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Present Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 27.06.2023 in Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2023, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra, vide which the present petitioner-opposite party No.2 ('OP') was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. With his kind assistance the entire revision petition had also been properly perused and examined.
4. While unfolding the arguments Mr. Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that on 16.06.2023, upon received notice on the same day present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 has assigned to one local Advocate in Kurukshetra via email and requested him to appear before the learned District Commission and requested him to appear before the learned district commission on 27.06.2023 i.e the first date of hearing and also requested him to share Vakalatnama with the present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 for execution. Thereafter, the said local Advocate had shared a draft Vakalatnama with the present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 via email on dated 19.06.2023 and requested to dispatch the share the inputs in order to draft the written statement. Further, present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 has dispatched the duly executed version of the vakalatnama to the Local Advocate for filing the same before the learned district commission on 27.06.2023 and he also shared the documents for drafting the written statement on behalf of present-petitioner-opposite party No.2. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2023, present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 came to know that the said local Advocate has failed to appear before the learned district commission on behalf of the present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 on 27.06.2023. Hence, learned district commission vide its impugned order dated 27.06.2023 proceeded ex-parte proceedings against present-petitioner-opposite party No.2. Thereafter, present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 assigned the matter to one of its legal firm for appearing in the present matter and the said legal firm drafted the written statement along with an application for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2023.The procedure of drafting, execution notarization of the documents has taken three-four weeks, thereafter The said legal firm assigned the matter to its Local Advocate at Kurukshetra for filing the same before learned District Commission. Thereafter, the said local tried to file the written statement along with an application for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2023 on behalf of the present-petitioner-opposite party No.2, however, learned district commission did not consider above-said application, written statement and Vakalatnama on its record. He further argued that non-appearance of present-petitioner-opposite party No.2 before the learned District Commission was neither intentional nor willful and further prayed that order dated 27.06.2023, passed by learned District Commission may be set aside and present revision petition may be allowed.
5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex-parte proceedings were initiated before learned District Commission against the present petitioner-OP No.2, but, it is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the present petitioner-OP No.2 is afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Commission. So, in these circumstances, orders dated 27.06.2023, passed by learned District Commission, Kurukshetra, vide which ex-parte proceedings initiated against OP No.2- present petitioner is set-aside and the present revision petition is allowed subject to depositing of Rs.3,000/- as of costs to be paid by the present petitioner-OP No.2 to the complainant before learned district commission, Kurkshetra. Let, the present petitioner-OP No.2 be afforded an opportunity to appear before learned District Commission and to file its reply as well as to lead its evidence etc. thereafter, the complaint be decided on merits.
6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra on 28.11.2023 for further proceedings.
7. 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 respondent 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, 2002 .
8. Application(s), if any, is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.
9. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
10. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.
Pronounced on 07th November, 2023 S.P. Sood Judicial Member Addl. Bench [ S . P . Sood] PRESIDING MEMBER