STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Misc. Application No.769 of 2022 In/and Revision Petition No.41 of 2022 Date of Institution : 27.05.2022 Date of Decision : 13.07.2022

1. M/s Land Twisters, Main Office, Opp. Ansal Golf Link II, Kharar Landran Road, Sector-115, Mohali, through its Manager.

2. Managing Director, M/s Land Twisters, Main Office Opp. Ansal Golf Link II, Kharar Landran Road, Sector-115, Mohali.

……....Petitioners/opposite parties Versus Paramjit Kaur W/o S.Narinder Singh, R/o Quarter No.17, Type-II, BSF Headquarters, Lakhnaur, PO Sohana, Mohali-140308.

……..….Respondent/complainant First Appeal against the order dated 02.12.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-

For the petitioners : Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Kulwant Singh Jassal, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER The instant petition along with application for condonation of delay, has been filed by the petitioners against the interim order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which the petitioners/opposite parties have been proceeded against ex-parte.

M.A. No.769 of 2022 (Delay)

2. This application has been filed by the petitioners/opposite parties for condoning the delay of 814 days in filing the petition on the ground that the opposite parties came to know about the order only on 19.05.2022 while the OPs were searching on the website for some other case, whereby the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte. Immediately thereafter, the opposite parties applied for the certified copy of the order through their counsel, which was received on 23.05.2022 and then the revision petition filed.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 814 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Main Petition

3. 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 petitioners/opposite parties have been proceeded against ex-parte. Suffice it to mention that the respondent /complainant filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “C.P.Act”) against the opposite parties. On 02.12.2019, despite service, the opposite parties failed to appear before the District Commission and were proceeded against ex- parte. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ opposite parties stated that petitioners/opposite parties did not receive any summon to appear before the District Commission and came to know only when they were searching for some other case on the website. Immediately they applied for the certified copy of the order and filed the revision petition without any delay. Further stated that non- appearance of the opposite parties before the District Commission is neither willful nor intentional but due to the reasons detailed as above.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties as well as counsel for the respondent/complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the non- appearance of the petitioners before the District Commission is neither willful nor intentional but only on account of the facts and circumstances as narrated in the petition. Further prayed that they be given an opportunity to be heard in the complaint and ex-parte order dated 02.12.2019 be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant stated that revision petition should have been dismissed only on the ground of limitation as no plausible ground has been taken in the application. Counsel further argued that the petitioners/opposite parties have also failed to give any cogent and convincing reasoning in the revision petition on account of non-appearanc