ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of Institution : 11.02.2025 Date of Decision : 14.02.2025

1. LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., 51 Udyog Vihar, GR Noida (UP)

2. LG Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., Reg. Office at A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative IND Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

……....Revisionists/Opposite parties No.2 & 3 Versus

1. Daljit Kaur W/o Rajvinder Singh R/o Lodhi Majra, PO Lodhi Majra, Tehsil and District Rupnagar ….Respondent/Complainant

2. Sunny Electronic, Shop No.4, Ambuja Road, Nuhon, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, through its Prop. Sunny Phone No.98157-95096.

….Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 Revision Petition u/S 47(1)b under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.11.2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the revisionists : Sh.Dhruv Khanna, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER Vide this revision, the revisionists-LG Electronic India Pvt.

Ltd. & Anr. assailing the order of the District Commission, Ropar passed on 12.11.2024, vide which the revisionists-opposite parties No.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte.

2. Facts of the case are not necessary for disposal of this petition as the challenge is only to the interim order, vide which the District Commission has passed an order wherein revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 has been proceeded against ex-parte. Suffice it is to mention that the respondent/complainant filed the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (in short “C.P.Act”) against the opposite parties. On 12.11.2024, despite service, the revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 failed to appear before the District Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte. Learned counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 stated that the revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 could not appear on the date fixed as the officials of the revisionists noted down the wrong date. Thereafter, due to lack of knowledge, the revisionists filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order before the District Commission, which was later withdrawn and then filed this revision petition by collecting all the documents. It is submitted that the absence of revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 on the date of hearing was neither intentional nor willful but due to the reasons detailed above.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists/opposite parties No.2 & 3 contends that non-appearance of the revisionist before the District Commission is neither willful nor intentional but only on account of the facts and circumstances as narrated in the revision petition. Further prayed that they be given an opportunity to be heard in the complaint and ex-parte order dated 12.11.2024 be set aside. The contention of the counsel is supported by affidavit.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists/

opposite parties No.2 & 3 .

6. Admittedly, as per the order dated 12.11.2024, presumption of service has been drawn that the revisionists /opposite parties No.2 & 3 were served in the complaint as neither Registered cover nor AD received back served or unserved. 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.

7. 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 pre