STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 30.05.2023 Reserved On : 08.07.2024 Date of decision : 19.08.2024

1. M/s Pee Pee Marketing, through its Proprietor Er. Parveen Jaswal, Wazir Enclave, opposite Bansal Palace, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar.

2. Er. Parveen Jaswal, Proprietor, M/s Pee Pee Marketing, Wazir Enclave, Opposite Bansal Palace, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar.

….Petitioners/OPs Versus

1. Manjit Singh S/o Kirpal Singh;

2. Kirpal Singh S/o Late Sh. Waryam Singh;

Both residents of H.No.8, Near Partap Palace, Punjab Avenue, VPO Ladhewali, Jalandhar.

….Respondents/Complainants Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the orders dated 16.02.2023 and 21.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.

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 Petitioners : Sh. J.S. Jaswal, Advocate For the Respondents : Sh. Kirpal Singh, in person.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OPs under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘Act of 2019’) to challenge the impugned orders dated 16.02.2023 and 21.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”).

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 respondents/Complainants had filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein the notices were issued to the Petitioners/OPs, who had appeared and filed their joint written version. During the pendency of the Complaint, an Application was filed by the Petitioners to cross-examine the Complainants/witnesses. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainants. Said Application filed by the OPs was dismissed by the District Commission vide order dated 16.02.2023. Thereafter, the OPs had filed an Application for recalling the order dated 16.02.2023 (wrongly mentioned ‘order dated 20.02.2023) passed by the District Commission. Said Application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2023 on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. 4. Both the said orders dated 16.02.2023 and 21.04.2023 passed by the District Commission are subject matter of the present Revision Petition.

5. There was delay of 10 days in filing of the Revision Petition. Misc. Application No.769 of 2023 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said Application was allowed vide order dated 19.06.2023 and the delay in filing of the Revision Petition was condoned.

6. Mr. J.S. Jaswal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/OPs has submitted that the District Commission had passed the impugned orders without any application of judicious mind, as it was a case of dispute of money transactions between the Complainants and the OPs. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Complainant No.2 had filed certain Complaints in the Court of JMIC as well as other authorities and the contents of those Complaints are similar to the Complaint filed by the Complainants before the District Commission. However, the Complainants had not produced said documents on record. Further, the Complainants had also not filed the receipts of the alleged investment of money with the OPs. Even no loan receipts have been placed on record by the Complainants. Learned Counsel has submitted that in order to verify all these facts and circumstances, the c