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

Date of institution : 20.10.2023 Date of Decision : 01.11.2023 Fateh Auto through its Sole Propreitor Sh. Vikram Ghai, Mehtab Complex, G.T. Road, Kot Kalan, Near Mc Donald, Jalandhar.

….Revisionist/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Dr. Vishal Thakur, aged about 49 years, s/o Sh. Madan Mohan Thatai, R/o H.No.9, Dada Nagar, Jalandhar.

…..Respondent No.1/complainant

2. M/s Royal Enfield, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/

Authorized person, No.624, Tiruvottiyur High Road,, Tiruvottiyur, (Near Tiruvottiyur Bus Terminus), Chennai – 600019.

…..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 Revision Petition against the order dated 12.09.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the revisionist : Sh. Tapas Sharma, Advocate H.P.S. MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the revisionist/OP No.3 challenging the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, (in short “District Commission”) whereby the revisionist was proceeded against ex parte.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that non- appearance of the revisionist in the complaint, before District Commission was unintentional and due to the fact that summons of the complaint sent by the District Commission were never received by the revisionist and prima facie there is seems to be some confusion pertaining to its delivery report. Later respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 informed revisionist about the pendency of the complaint. Due to this reason revisionist could not appear before the District Commission. 4. We have heard learned counsel for revisionist and gone through the record of the case. The plea taken by learned counsel for revisionist is quite plausible showing that non-appearance of the revisionist was a bona fide one and is not intentional. Nevertheless, the law is very clear on this point that endeavour should be put in, by the Court to hear the parties on merits of the case, instead of continuing the ex parte proceedings. As such, this Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 is set aside, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.1/complainant. The case is remanded back to District Commission, Jalandhar, and the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 08.11.2023 and revisionist be given chance to file written statement as per law. The payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-, as stated above, will be condition precedent, failing which this Revision Petition would be deemed to be dismissed.

5. Registry is directed to immediately send the certified copy of the order to the District Commission.

(H.P.S. MAHAL)

PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL)

MEMBER November 1^st, 2023 DB