Order No. 3            Dt. 31/08/2022

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/opposite party is also present.

The MA Application dated 29.08.2022 is taken up for hearing along with its objection filed today by the complainant/opposite party.  Copy has already been served upon the opposite party/petitioner.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party/petitioner prays for recalling the order dated 10.08.2022 and to allow the opposite party/petitioner to contest CC/255/2021 by filing W/V on the grounds mentioned in the MA Application.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/opposite party herein raised strong objection against the prayer of the petitioner.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant/opposite party pointed out that the  opposite party/petitioner has specifically prayed to recall order dated 10.08.2022 and to allow him to submit W/V but vide order no.7 dt. 30.05.2022 the case has been fixed ex parte as against the opposite party.  In spite of that, opposite party deliberately not appeared on 30.05.2022 after service of notice upon him on 23.05.2022.  The petitioner being the opposite party in CC/255/2021 was fully aware of the dates of the CC Case.  Thereafter the instant Commission was rightly pleased to pass an order vide order no. 7 dated 30.05.2022 to proceed the case ex parte as against the opposite party.   There is no error in passing of such order by this Commission.  There is no provision for recalling any order in Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Moreover, Section 40 of C.P. Act, 2019 is also not applicable here.

Considering the rival contention of the parties and on perusal of the record of CC/255/2021, we find that after filing of the case the complaint petition was amended on the prayer of the complainant. After amendment, fresh notice was served upon the opposite party on 23.05.2022.  The next date fixed was on 30.05.2022for appearance of opposite party.  But in spite of receiving notice the opposite party did not care to appear in the case neither there was any prayer for adjournment to submit W/V. 

It is apparent on the face of the record that the opposite party was fully aware of the existence and dates of CC/255/2021.

Therefore, the Commission has rightly passed an order on 30.05.2022 to proceed with the case ex parte as against the opposite party.

Moreover, the order no. 7 dated 30.05.2022 passed by this Commission has not been challenged by the opposite party/petitioner herein. 

It is fact that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to recall any order.

In view of above discussion the instant application is liable to be rejected.

Therefore, the MA Application dated 29.08.2022 is rejected with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only.

Thus, the MA Application is disposed of.