Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/6/2022

Raja PRS, - Complainant(s)

Versus

. Jai Autos, And 4 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. S.Subramania Raja

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

              Thiru. S. Karuppiah                        … JUDICIAL MEMBER

           Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL      … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.06 of 2022

(Against the Order, dated 16.12.2021, passed in M.A No.12 of 2021 in C.C. No.05/2021 on the file of  the DCDRC, Tiruvarur)

                                                    

Dated this the 24^th August 2022

 

S. Ramadas,

No.4/164-H, Sundaram Nagar,

Pulivalam – 610 109,

Tiruvarur Taluk.

 

Agent:

V.V. Jeyaraman,

Coordinator,

Consumer Protection Movement,

No.96/1, VRM Road,

Vijayapuram,

Tiruvarur.

                     ... Revision Petitioner / Respondent / Complainant.

vs.

 

1. R. Vidhya,

Village Administrative Officer (Vanchiyur),

Veppandhankudi,

Mavoor Post,

Tiruvarur Taluk.

 

2. The Tasildar,

Tasildar Officew,

   Tanjur Road,

   Tiruvarur.

 

3. Sridevi,

No.A 2, Revenue Commissioner Office,

South Street,

Tiruvarur.

 

4. The Revenue Commission Officer,

Revenue Commissioner Office,

South Street,

Tiruvarur.     ... Respondents/Petitioners / Opposite parties.

 

             Rev. Petitioner :  Party in person

 

     This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                     This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 16.12.2021, passed by the DCDRC, Tiruvarur, in M.A. No.12 of 2021 in C.C. No.5 of 2021, whereby, the District Commission has set aside the ex parte order passed against the OPs and received the written version filed by them.

             2. On a perusal of the papers relating to the proceedings of the District Commission, we find that, after service of notice upon the OPs during March, 2021, the case was posted on 11.3.2021, on which date, the OPs were called absent, whereupon, the matter stood adjourned to 01.04.2021 and, on the said date, the complainant filed a petition to amend the name of OP No.3.  Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 15.04.2021 and over the non-appearance of OP Nos.1, 2 and 4, they were set ex parte and the case was adjourned to 06.05.2021 by issuing fresh notice to OP No.3.  On 06.05.2021, one Mr.Ravindran filed the Memo of Appearance for OP Nos.1 to 4 and filed a written version.  Thereafter, on 08.07.2021, at request, the matter stood adjourned to 29.07.2021, on which date, the complainant raised his objections for the appearance memo by pointing out that OP Nos.1, 2 and 4 were already set ex parte.  Thereafter, the case was adjourned on different occasions.  The papers also show the pendency of M.A. No.12 of 2021 on 30.09.2021, that was filed to set aside the ex party order passed against the OPs.  While so, on 16.12.2021, the District Commission has passed the impugned order, setting aside the ex parte order passed against the OPs and receiving the written version filed by them.

 

             3. According to the complainant, there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act enabling the District Commission to set aside the ex parte order  passed by it and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

 

             4. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find, the District Commission has allowed the Miscellaneous Application on a finding that the OPs were set ex parte during the Covid Period which can be excluded by virtue of the extension of limitation period granted by the orders of the Apex Court.  But, the analogy derived by the District Forum from the orders of the Apex Court extending the limitation period during Covid times, seems to be devious for the reason that the said Order, relaxing the limitation period to file cases under all general and special laws, cannot be meant to be applied by the District Commission so randomly even for accepting the version from the OPs, who, after receiving Notice, purposely absented themselves.  We want to emphasise that the said Order of the Apex Court cannot be used to over-ride the statutory outer-limit fixed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

             In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order, dated 16.12.2021, passed by the DCDRC, Tiruvarur, in M.A. No.12 of 2021 in C.C. No.5 of 2021.

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL    S. KARUPPIAH            R.SUBBIAH, J.

          MEMBER                  JUDL. MEMBER           PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2022.