State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramniwas And Another on 9 August, 2022
Revision Petition No.49 of 2022 09.08.2022
Bayer Bio Science Vs Ramniwas & Anr.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 01.08.2022
Date of final hearing:09.08.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 09.08.2022
Revision Petition No.49 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF
Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, Bayer House, Central Avenue,
Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) 400607, Maharashtra-400607 through
its Authorized Person Shri Saurabh Sharma, Commercial Manager.
Through Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate
.......Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Ramniwas son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of Village Nangli
Parsapur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana.
......Respondent No.1-Complainant
2. Sharma Traders, Pranpura Road, near Ambedkar Chowk, Bawal,
Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana.
......Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.
Present: Ms. Monika Thatai, counsel for the revisionist/petitioner.
ORDER
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
Petitioner- Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, who stood impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the complaint titled 'Ramniwas Vs. Sharma Traders and Another' has filed the present revision for challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari whereby it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte as notice issued to opposite party No.2 Allowed Page 1 of 3 Revision Petition No.49 of 2022 09.08.2022 Bayer Bio Science Vs Ramniwas & Anr.
through registered post was not received back either served or unserved and a period of more than 30 days had already expired leading to presumption of law that it stood duly served and nobody had put in appearance on its behalf.
2. According to the petitioner, the summons issued by the District Consumer Commission were duly received by the petitioner company at its office at Mumbai but due to some miscommunication, the counsel could not appear in the complaint before the District Consumer Commission. Resultantly, vide order dated 06.06.2022, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The non appearance on behalf of the petitioner company was unintentional. On the other hand, the complainant had levelled false, vague and frivolous allegations against the petitioner company. The joining of the petitioner in the proceedings and filing of reply/evidence by the petitioner would not cause any prejudice to the complainant. On the other hand, if the petitioner is not allowed to present the case, the petitioner company would suffer an irreparable loss and substantial injury. It is also submitted that the complaint is now fixed for 25.08.2022 before the District Consumer Commission for filing of reply by opposite party No.1-Sharma Traders.
3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and considering that no substantial injury or loss is likely to be caused to the complainant in case the petitioner company is granted one more opportunity for putting in appearance before the District Consumer Commission and file the Power of Attorney as well as the written version.
Allowed Page 2 of 3
Revision Petition No.49 of 2022 09.08.2022 Bayer Bio Science Vs Ramniwas & Anr.
4. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 06.06.2022 to the extent of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted another opportunity to put in appearance before the District Consumer Commission on 25.08.2022 and file the written version as well as the Power of Attorney. However, this order is subject to costs of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner at the time of putting in appearance i.e. on 25.08.2022, which amount shall thereafter be disbursed in favour of the complainant, namely, Ramniwas.
5. This revision petition is being 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 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 27th, 2002.
6. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
7. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
Pronounced On:09.08.2022 (T.P.S. MANN)
PRESIDENT
Allowed Page 3 of 3