RNB Overseas vs Vinod Kumar & Ors

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s) submitted that he has filed these Revision Petitions against the Order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) dated 22.10.2019 which dismissed his Appeal(s) on the ground of limitation.  There was a delay of 157 days in filing of the Appeal(s).

He further submitted that he was not even heard by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (for short ‘District Commission’), which gave an ex-parte Order against the Petitioner(s) dated 12.03.2019.  He submitted that he was never served in so far as the District Commission is concerned and since he has not been heard on merits by any of the two Commissions, he may be permitted to be heard by the District Commission.

Perused the record, it is seen that the District Commission gave an ex-parte Order based on the notice which was sent through registered post but no acknowledgment received without indicating whether service was done or not.  The District Commission took the decision that since 30 days had passed, such service would be considered as deemed service.

While both the Commissions have their own reasons for not hearing the Petitioner(s)/Opposite Party(s) but in order to have a proper adjudication, an opportunity should be given to the Petitioner(s)/Opposite Party(s) to be heard once and therefore, we are of the considered opinion to remand the case to the District Commission, which shall hear the matter on merit subject to a cost of Rs.15,000/- each to be paid to the Respondent No.1/Complainant in each of the two cases.

The Order(s) of the State Commission dated 22.10.2019 and District Forum dated 04.01.2019 are set aside.

Parties to appear before the District Commission on 11.11.2024.

The Revision Petition(s) are accordingly disposed of.