STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.01.2024 Reserved On : 04.04.2024 Date of decision : 19.04.2024 Trishla Residents Welfare Association, through its President Hemant Negi S/o Sh. Manohar Singh Negi, aged about 60 years, R/o Flat No.240, near Sector 20, Panchkula, Pir Machhalla, Dhakauli, SAS Nagar, Mohali, having Society Office in Hadimba Tower-8, Trishla Plus Homes, Peer Muchhala, Tehsil Zirakpur, District Mohali.

….Petitioner/OP Versus Trishla Jamwal through her husband Sh. Anchal Singh Jamwal, R/o Flat No.604, 6^th Floor, Trishla Plus Homes, Peer Muchhalla, Tehsil Zirakpur, District Mohali.

….Respondent/Complainant Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anchal Singh Jamwal, Autho. Rep.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The Petitioner/OP i.e. Trishla Residents Welfare Association through its President being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali (in short, “the District Commission”) in CC No.285 of 2023 has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’).

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that the Respondent/Complainant had filed the Complaint before the District Commission, wherein notice was issued to the Petitioner/OP vide order dated 26.06.2023 for appearance on 23.08.2023 and to file written version as well as entire documentary evidence. However, the OP did not appear on the date fixed and it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 23.08.2023, which is reproduced as under: “As per office report, notice sent to the OP through registered pos on 07.07.2023 has not been received back served or un-served. Period of 30 days has already elapsed. Case called several times during the day. None appeared on behalf of the OP. Therefore, the OP is proceeded against ex parte. Put up for 26.10.2023 for ex parte evidence of the Complainant.”

4. Said order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Petitioner/OP by way of filing the present Revision Petition by raising a number of grounds.

5. There was a delay of 52 days in filing of the Revision Petition. Misc. Application No.132 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said application was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2024 and the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned subject to cost of 2,000/- to be paid to the ₹

Respondent/Complainant.

6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP has submitted that the Petitioner did not receive any notice/summon as per Section 65 (3) of the Act sent by the District Commission with regard to ongoing proceedings of the Complaint and as such, the OP could not appear before the District Commission and was proceeded ex parte vide order darted 23.08.2023 by observing that the notice sent to the OP through Regd. Post on 07.07.2023 was not received, either served or un-served. Only on the basis of presumption of deemed service, on the expiry of period of 30 days, the ex parte order was passed. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Petitioner came to know about the pendency of the Complaint only in the 1^st week of January when the Respondent/Complainant like