STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `

AT HYDERABAD

                                                R.P.  No. 44 OF 2015

                                                          Against

                             Interlocutory order dated 22.06.2015 in CC 207/2015,

                                                District Forum, Karimnagar.

Between :

Unique Mercantile India Pvt. Ltd

Rep. by its Manager

1^st floor, Maruthi complex, SBI Building,

Mukarampura, karimnagar               …      Petitioner/opposite party no. 1

and

1. Saganti Komuramma,

S/o Mallaiah

H.no.3-21, Penchikalpet Village,

Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar dist.  .. Respondent/complainant

2. Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd

Rep by its Manager, Ahmedabad,

Gujarat                                         ..        Respondent No.2/Op No.2

Counsel for the petitioner        :         Sri Bapi Raju, authorised person

Counsel for the respondents    :         Notice served on  R1 and R2.

Coram        :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla  …      President

And

Sri PatilVithal Rao                           ..        Member

Thursday, The Twenty Fourth Day of August

Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.RaoNalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                *****

1. This is a Revision petition  filed Under Section 17 (i) (b)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Interlocutory order dated 22/06/2015 passed by the District Forum, Karimnagar  in CC 207/2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
3.  The respondent/complainant filed CC 207/23015 before the District Forum, Karimnagar against the Revision petitioner/1^st opposite party and Met Life India Insurance Co.Ltd as 2^nd opposite party. During course of the proceedings, since both the opposite parties called absent even at 3.35 PM on 22.06.2015.,  the District Forum set exparte and posted  for Evidence affidavit of complainant on  13.07.2015.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the first opposite party preferred this Revision petition to set  aside the exparte order passed by the District Forum on 22.06.2015 against it and direct the District Forum to take their written version on record.
5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside ?
6. Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The first respondent/ complainant filed counter. The second respondent/second opposite party despite service of notice and ample opportunties did not choose to file counter and hence the counter of R2 was dispensed with.
7. The case of the Revision petitioner/1^st opposite party,  in brief,  is that they had to file written version on 22.06.2015, i.e. the first date after filing the case against them. Their head office is located at Ahmedabad, Gujarat State and their branch office is situated at Karimnagar. On the date, when the District Forum passed the Ex-parte order closing their stage of written version  there was a serious issue  at their Karimnagar Branch took place  and the authorised person could not attend the Forum on time and he attended Forum late. Due to the said  incident the entire day of Authorized person got exhausted and when he visited the Forum at about 4.30 PM the District Forum had already passed Interlocutory order against them forfeiting  their right to reply.
8. The first respondent/complainant opposed the above petition by way of counter and contended that the Revision Petitioner/1^st opposite party has already filed his written version of  his defense before the District Forum, Karimnagar with the consent of the respondent/complainant counsel and the same was taken on record. This petition is filed to cause delay in disposing of  CC 207/2015 before the District Forum. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. We have perused the matter. The facts reveal that since  there was a serious issue at their office in  Karimnagar, the authorised person of the Revision Petitioner  could not attend the Forum on time and he attended Forum late and by the time he reached the District  Forum at about 4.30 PM it  had already passed Interlocutory order against them forfeiting  their right to reply. Rebutting the same, the first respondent/complainant argued that since the Revision Petitioner/1^st opposite party had already filed his written version of  his defense before the District Forum, Karimnagar and the same was taken on record and the petition is filed to cause delay and hence it is liable to be dismissed. It  is to be observed that there is  negligence on the part of the  Revision Petitioner in prosecuting their case and in view of the said fact  the District Forum set them exparte. We may state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to it. It is to be stated that the matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity etc. If the petition is allowed to defend their cause, there will be no harm to the case of  first respondent/ complainant and we are of the opinion that  justice would be done to both sides. The argument of the first respondent/complainant that written version was already on record may not meet the ends of justice.  
10. After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regarded to the contentions raised  on behalf of the Revision petitioner and the first respondent/complainant , this Commission is of the view that the petition is liable to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-.  
11. In the result, the petition is allowed setting aside the exparte order dated 22.06.2015 against the Revision petitioner/1^st opposite party only, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the Bar Association. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                   PRESIDENT                   MEMBER

                                                                             DATED :24.08.2017.