PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been preferred by opposite party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited for setting aside order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “District Commission”), vide which, it was proceeded against exparte.

Since none appeared on behalf of both respondents No.1 & 2 despite due service, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte by this Commission vide order dated 06.03.2026.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and have also gone through the material available on record and the impugned order carefully.

The contention of the petitioner, in brief, is that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that service of summons at an unrelated office of the petitioner at Ahmedabad cannot be treated as valid service when the complaint itself is instituted at Chandigarh; that the petitioner had no intentional or willful default and the non- appearance occurred solely due to improper service; that exparte proceedings without ensuring proper service amounts to material irregularity and jurisdictional error, squarely attracting revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, who has a strong and bona fide defence to the complaint and would suffer irreparable loss if the impugned order is allowed to stand.

Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner, it may be stated here that there is a delay of 29 days (as per office – 26 days) in filing this revision petition, for condonation whereof, a IA/102/2026 has been filed alongwith the revision petition on the ground that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. It has been stated that the summons/notices of the complaint were wrongly sent to the Ahmedabad office of the applicant Bank instead of being served upon the concerned Chandigarh/jurisdictional office, which was actually handling the subject account. It has further been stated that due to the said improper defective service, the concerned department of the applicant Bank having knowledge of the dispute was never informed about the pendency of the complaint before the District Commission. It has further been stated that as a result thereof and solely due to lack of knowledge of the proceedings, the applicant Bank could not put in appearance and was consequently proceeded exparte vide the order impugned. It has further been stated that the applicant Bank came to know about the said exparte order only subsequently whereafter the matter was immediately examined at the appropriate level, legal opinion was sought, relevant records were collected and necessary approvals were obtained for filing the present revision petition.

So far as the claim of the petitioner that the summons/notices of the complaint were wrongly sent to the unrelated Ahmedabad office of the applicant Bank, instead of being served upon the concerned Chandigarh/jurisdictional office, which was actually handling the subject account and that due to the said improper defective service, the concerned department of the applicant Bank having knowledge of the dispute was never informed about the pendency of the complaint before the District Commission, we will deal with this issue separately.

However, so far as the delay is concerned, it being on a minor side being that of 29 days (as per office – 26 days), in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, can easily be condoned. Thus, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. IA/102/2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

Now coming to the contentions raised by the petitioner t