ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.1028 of 2022 In/and
Revision Petition No.58 of 2022 Date of Institution : 22.07.2022 Date of Reserve : 29.09.2022 Date of Decision : 13.10.2022
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Jalandhar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Pathankot.
……....Revisionist /opposite party No.2
Versus
1. Baldev Raj Prashar son of Sh.Sham Dass Prashar, Resident of Kothi No.341, Gopal Nagar, Samadh Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
…..Respondent/Complainant
2. The Vipul Med Corp TRA Pvt. Ltd., SCI No.98, First Floor, Industrial Area, Phase No.2, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager.
…….Respondent/opposite party No.1
Revision Petition u/S 47(1)b under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 04.02.2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Present:-
For the revisionist : Sh.Ajay Dadhwal, Advocate
1
2
HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Vide this revision, the revisionist-National Insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the order of the District Commission, Gurdaspur passed on 04.02.2020, vide which the revisionist-opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.
M.A. No.1028 of 2022 (Delay)
2. This application has been filed by the applicant/revisionist for condonation of delay of 808 days in filing the revision petition on the ground that the revisionist was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Commission, whereas the counsel engaged by the revisionist was appeared before the District Commission after receiving the summons but on that very day due to non-availability of the Presiding Member and Member no effective work was done and the case was adjourned to 04.02.2020. However, learned counsel for the revisionist has wrongly noted down the date as 10.02.2020 and when counsel reached before the District Commission on 10.02.2022 he came to know that revisionist/ opposite party No.2 has been proceeded against ex-parte on dated 04.02.2020. Thereafter, due to outbreak of COVID pandemic the courts were closed. On 24.12.2020, the revisionist moved an application in the District Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order, which was disposed of, vide order dated 08.06.2022 and immediately thereafter the revisionist/ opposite party No.2 moved this revision petition on 22.07.2022 and in all this the delay of 808 days has occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful but only on account of the facts and circumstances as narrated.
3
3. I have heard the contentions of the applicant/revisionist at the admission stage and have carefully gone through the record.
4. I dispose of the application for condonation of delay on the reasons stated in it and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mentioned in catena of judgments that the cases should be heard on merits and not throwing away the matter at preliminary stage. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 has held as under:
"I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings."
5. I, also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 1612 'Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' wherein it has been held that 'sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the powers to condone the delay'.
6. In view of the above discussions, the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is condoned, subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
Main Revision
7. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for revisionist/opposite party No.2 that the revisionist has been proceeded against ex-parte on account of noted down the wrong
4
date by the counsel appearing before the District Commission. The contention of the counsel is supported by the documents placed on record.
8. It is settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal", AIR 2010-SC- 2991, that a party, which claims to have substantial right, which require adjudication by a Court of law, should not be denied the opportunity of hearing, by not setting aside the order on hyper- technical grounds.
9. In another case "Bhagwan Swaroop vs. Mool Chand"
(1983) 2 SCC 132, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court's approach should be oriented with a view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in court. A code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties.
10. No wrongful or harmful affect would be caused to the respondent/complainant, if the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 is set aside and respondent/complainant is compensated for the lapse of the revisionist/opposite party No.2
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid to the respondent /complainant. So far as the cost payable to the respondent/ complainant is concerned, it may be paid directly to the respondent/ complainant against receipt or deposited in the District Commission by way of demand draft in the name of respondent/complainant on or
5
before 10.11.2022. The revisionist/opposite party No.2 shall file written statement/reply as well as evidence on their appearance before the District Commission on 10.11.2022, and an advance copy be also supplied to the respondent / complainant. The District Commission is directed to ensure that the both the costs imposed have been deposited and paid before taking written statement and evidence of the revisionist /opposite party No.2
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
October 13th ,2022
parmod
Comments