Rajesh K. Arya, Member1. This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against order dated 30.09.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short District Commission-I), vide which, it (Opposite Party No.1) was proceeded against exparte.2. It may be stated here that despite service of notice of this revision upon respondent No.1/complainant through email on 23.11.2020, when none put in appearance on her behalf, respondent No.1/complainant was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.12.2020. However, opportunity was granted to both the parties to file written arguments, which were duly filed.3. We have heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 and have also carefully gone through the record and written arguments filed by the parties.4. The impugned order dated 30.09.2020 has been assailed on the ground that on 30.09.2020, when the case was fixed for appearance of opposite parties No.1 & 2 before the District Commission-I, Counsel for the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 was not in city and had gone to his in laws at Delhi. It has further been stated that before moving back on 28.09.2020, he felt unwell and suffered from sudden fever because of which, he preferred to stay back for three more days and finally thought of moving on 01.10.2020 and even after returning, he was on rest for one year. It has further been stated that on 16.10.2020, while the Counsel was checking the pending case list, he came to know after going through the case details online that District Commission-I on 30.09.2020 had proceeded opposite party No.1 as exparte.5. In support of above contention, Sh. Amit Bhanot, Advocate, Counsel for the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 has filed his own affidavit.6. In our considered opinion, non-appearance on the part of the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 was not intentional and it was on account of non-availability of the Counsel in town and thereafter, his getting ill after returning back from Delhi. It may also be stated here that the complaint is at initial stage and no prejudice will be caused, if the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 is given an opportunity to appear before the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh and file reply and evidence/affidavit.7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Order, under challenge, is set aside. The revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 is permitted to place on record reply and evidence/affidavit on the next date of hearing before District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh. We make it very clear that in case, reply and evidence/affidavit is not filed on the next date of hearing, no further opportunity shall be granted for the said purpose.8. We expect that the Forum will decide the complaint expeditiously.9. Order passed is subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- by the revision petitioner/opposite party No.1 to respondent No.1/complainant, before District Commission-I, U.T,., Chandigarh on the date fixed.10. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commiss
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ion-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 09.04.2021.11. Complete record of complaint file be sent back to District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the date fixed.12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.13. File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.