STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.03.2025 Date of decision : 17.03.2025 Sanjeev Kumar s/o Des Raj, resident of # 2670, Court Road, Bengali Sweet House Wali Gali, Bathinda.

….Petitioner/Complainant Versus

1. Bathinda Development Authority (earlier known as PUDA), BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Estate Officer.

2. The Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority (earlier known as PUDA), BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.

…Respondents/OPs Revision Petition under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, 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 : Sh. Nitish Garg, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off two Revision Petitions i.e. Revision Petition No.17 of 2025 and Revision Petition No.18 of

2025, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from Revision Petition No.17 of

2025.

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Application filed by for additional evidence had been dismissed.

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 the disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that the Petitioner/Complainant had filed the Complaint before the District Commission, wherein the notices were issued to the Respondents/OPs. The OPs had appeared and filed their written reply before the District Commission, whereby they had denied the averments of the Complaint. Thereafter, an Application for additional evidence was filed for producing certain photographs and video-

recording through pen-drive.

4. Reply to said Application was filed by the OPs, wherein it was mentioned that the Complainant had closed his evidence and this fact was not mentioned in the application. The Application was filed at the fag end, whereas there was no provision for leading additional evidence as per the provisions of the Act.

5. By considering the contents of the Application as well as the reply thereto, the said Application filed by the Complainant was dismissed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated

29.01.2025. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:

“By filing this application, Complainant wants to produce photographs and video recording of the site but Complainant neither annexed the same with Application for notice to OPs nor stated that documents sought to be produced were in his knowledge or not at the time he filed present Complaint and led his evidence. Present Complaint pertains to year 2021. Complainant took more than two years and multiple opportunities to lead his evidence. After evidence of OPs, present Complaint is pending for arguments. In our view, Complainant failed to satisfy that non production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons. We are also of the view that due diligence on the part of the Complainant is missing. So, it will cause prejudice to OPs if present Application is allowed at this belated stage. Hence, the present Application for additional evidence stands dismissed.

Now, to come up on 18.02.2025 for arguments.”

6. Said order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Petitioner/Complaina