Procedural fairness requires parties to have the opportunity to present their defense, even after delays, provided no bad faith is evident.

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

There is delay of 406 days in filing of this revision petition. To seek its condonation application has been filed with accompanying affidavit. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners has also raised submission that petitioners have not gained anything by belatedly filing this revision petition. This Commission has assessed the relative merits of above contention. It is settled law that Courts of Law should endeavor to decide the lis between the parties on merits, instead of throwing cause of any litigant, overboard, on technical considerations like limitation. It is also settled law that liberal approach should be adopted in matters concerning condonation of delay and acceptance of explanation should normally be the criteria, unless, there appears any ulterior motive or mala fide intention on the part of aggrieved person. In present case, no such mala fide intention or ulterior motive is deciphered. This being so, delay in filing of present revision petition stands condoned.

2. Order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Gurugram in Consumer Complaint No. 982 of 2022 titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has been assailed in this Revision Petition, whereby defense of petitioners/insurer has been struck off.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for revisionists/insurer has urged that revisionists be granted one opportunity to tender its defense in the complaint case, which is still sub-judice. Counsel has urged that complainant/respondent can be compensated by way of costs and no prejudice is going to be caused to it.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/complainant has urged that defense of revisionists has been rightly struck of as it has not tendered its defense within the stipulated period and complainant has already closed its evidence.

5. On analyzing above contentions; this Commission opines that interest of justice lies while permitting revisionists/insurer to tender its defense in compliant case and to lead evidence in support thereof. This is just because the lis between the parties would be effectively decided on analyzing their rival case. Admittedly, complaint is still sub-judice. Accordingly, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant in case petitioners/OPs are now allowed to tender its defense/written statement and complainant be compensated by way of costs. While observing so, this Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Further, in process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be afforded adequate opportunity to put forward his/her/its case in a meaningful manner and to prove the same by leading evidence, admissible in law.

6. In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 11.05.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram in Complaint Case No.982 of 2022 titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is hereby set aside to the extent vide which defense of revisionists/OPs/insurer was struck off. Parties would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram on 27.08.2025, either through its authorized representative or through counsel and on that day revisionists would tender its written version. Thereafter, two effective opportunities would be granted to petitioners/OPs to lead and conclude its evidence. Since evidence of the complainant is already closed, so learned District Consumer Commission would grant two opportunities to complainant to lead evidence, if any, in rebuttal. This concession granted to petitioners herein/OPs to tender its wr