Managing Director, Escorts Ltd vs SUNDER SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Revision Petition No. 49 of 2013 The Managing Director, Escorts Ltd. Vs. Sunder Singh and Anr. by which, revision petition was dismissed as barred by limitation as well on merits.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no. 1 filed complaint before District Forum pertaining to defective JCB machine and prayed to pay Rs.20,00,000/ - as compensation. OP No. 1/petitioner was proceeded ex -parte before District Forum vide order dated 11.4.2012. OP No. 1 moved application for setting aside ex -parte order which was dismissed by District Forum vide order dated 13.7.2012 and case was adjourned to 7.8.2012 for hearing Counsel for the appellant on the point of maintainability of the complaint. OP No. 1 preferred revision petition against order dated 13.7.2012 which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 19.12.2012. Later on, another Revision Petition challenging ex -parte order dated 11.4.2012 was filed by OP No. 1 before State Commission which was dismissed by learned State commission vide impugned order on the ground of delay as well on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed.

NONE appeared for the Respondent No. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is delay in filing revision petition, but maintainability of the complaint itself under dispute State Commission ought to have condoned delay and matter should have been decided on merits, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding revision petition on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that petitioner was proceeded ex -parte on 11.4.2012 by District Forum and petitioner moved application for setting aside ex -parte order which was dismissed by District forum vide order dated 13.7.2012 as it had no authority to review its order. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed revision petition vide order dated 19.12.2012 and after that petitioner challenged order dated 11.4.2012 by another Revision Petition No. 49 of 2013 on 4.6.2013.

LEARNED State Commission observed that there was 329 days delay in filing appeal. Petitioner filed revision petition before State Commission and appeal was not filed and that revision petition was filed after dismissal of earlier revision petition on 19.12.2012. Strictly speaking, there was delay of about 160 days in filing revision petition from dismissal of earlier revision petition vide order dated 19.12.2012 and it cannot be said that there was delay of 329 days in preferring this revision petition.

AS there is question mark on the maintainability of the complaint itself before District Forum, learned State Commission should have condoned delay in filing revision petition subject to cost in the light of latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120 -10121 of 2014 Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors and Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 Taipen Traders Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage and Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned and should have decided revision petition on merits. Learned State Commission has mentioned in the order that even on merits, there is no force in the appeal, but I do not find any order on merit pertaining to ex -parte order dated 11.4.2012 which was challenged before learned State commission.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the learned State Commission in Revision Petition No. 49 of 2013 The Managing Director, Escorts Ltd. Vs. Sunder Singh and Anr. is set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/ - as cost to Respondent No.1 on or before the date of appearance before State Commission and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide revision petition on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before State Commission on 22.4.2015