Himgiri Auto India Private Limited vs Mrs. Sarneet Kaur

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the 24.04.2023 in Appeal No. 248/2022 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of the Order dated 06.07.2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 285 of 2017.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 06.07.2022 of the District Commission and the Order dated 24.04.2023 of the State Commission and the Petition.

Submission of the counsel is very precise and pointed. He contends that the impugned Order has been passed without granting audience to the counsel who was representing the petitioner in the State Commission. The reason for doing so has been explained by learned counsel as follows:

According to him the matter was initially listed on 27.04.2023 and the matter was listed at serial no. 22.  On that date the next date that was fixed was 12.05.2023.  Submission is that as such the petitioner had no reason to appear earlier in the matter and there was no reason to imagine that the matter can also be taken up at any point of time before that without prior intimation to the petitioner. It has been emphasized that the impugned Order under challenge was passed on 24.04.2023. Learned counsel has been gracious enough not to doubt the bona fides of the State Commission and submits that some glitch might have cropped up in the Registry or there was some other intervening circumstance that the matter was taken up on 24.04.2023 and the impugned Order was passed.  The only submission made by the counsel is that petitioner had a strong case and had sufficient explanations and grounds to satisfy the State Commission for the reasons of delay but just because the matter was decided at the back of the counsel only on the basis of record the petitioner remained deprived of the opportunity to apprise the State Commission and that has gone to a great extent detrimentally to the prejudice of the valuable right of the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay or limitation.  The only submission is that the matter may be remanded so that the petitioner may have the opportunity to address the Commission and then the Order may be passed on merits as the State Commission may deem fit.

Ordinarily, the bench could have issued notice to the other side and would have listed the matter for future dates but that would have in all likelihood dumped this matter for a long period of time in view of the heavy pendency of cases. As the point in issue involved is not any complicated question of law or fact and relates only to the appreciation of first principles of natural justice this bench is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served to procrastinate the matter and deems it expedient to decide the same on the basis of record.

The entire record has been perused in the light of the submissions made by the counsel. The bench has also perused the cause list of 27.04.2023 which is part of annexure J which clearly shows that on that date the next date fixed was 12.05.2023 while the impugned Order has been passed by the State Commission on 24.04.2023.  In such circumstances the Order was passed without hearing the counsel. Without going into the merits of the case and without expressing any opinion about the same, it appears expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to address the Commission on the issue involved regarding the delay.

Sequel to the above discussion the revision is allowed.  The Order of State Commission dated 24.04.2023 passed in FA No. 248 of 2022 is set aside. The matter is being remanded back to the State Commission with a request that an opportunity of hearing may be granted to the counsel for the petitioner and the matter be heard afresh after providing opportunity to both the sides regarding the issue of delay in filing the appeal.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.09.2023.

The principal onus of informing the respondent of this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. It shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.

However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the respondent.

In case the respondent has objections to the instant Order, she may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that she will raise her objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondent may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise her objections.

If the respondent move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondent does not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days.  The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.  The Order be communicated to the fora below forthwith by fastest mode available.