(Delivered on 19/12/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Advocate Mr. Manish Meshram is present for the revision petitioner. Advocate  Ms. Shilpa Ghatole is present for the respondent No. 1/original complainant. Advocate Mr. Aditya Joshi appeared for the respondent No. 3 and he filed  appearance  memo. He undertakes to file Vakil Patra/Power on next date.  Advocate of the petitioner  also filed  track report about  service of notice to the respondent No. 2 along with  postal slip and submitted that  notice issued to the respondent No. 2  is  duly served on 05/10/2018 as per that track report.  We perused  that  track report and postal slip. We hold that   the notice has been duly served  to the respondent No. 2 on 05/10/2018. As the  respondent No. 2 is absent , proceed exparte against  it.

2.         We have finally heard the aforesaid  advocates  and  perused the record and proceedings  of the revision  petition.  The learned advocate of the petitioner submitted that  the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur erred in rejecting  an application  made on 18/01/2018 by the original  opposite  party  (for short O.P.) No. 3/petitioner  herein  seeking permission  to file reply. He argued  that  the  reply was  to be filed  in consequence  of amendment  in  para No. 7-b of the complaint  carried  out  subsequently   by the  complainant  and it was right of  the original O.P.No. 3/petitioner herein  to  file reply to the said  amendment.  He therefore, requested that  the impugned order   by which  the aforesaid  application was rejected  may be allowed and  reply filed  to the  amended complaint   may be taken on record.  He also submitted that  the  petitioner  is even  ready  to pay  reasonable  cost to the  respondent No. 1/original  complainant, if  the revision  petition  is allowed.

3.         Advocate Ms. Shilpa Ghatole  on the other  hand   submitted for the  respondent No. 1 that  no  permission  for accepting  the reply of the  original O.P. No. 3/petitioner  herein  can be granted as time for filing reply  was already lapsed and no reply order was  already  passed by the Forum below on 27/11/2015. Hence, she  requested  that  the revision petition  may be dismissed.  She alternatively submitted that   if this Commission  is inclined to  allow  the revision  petition,  then heavy cost of Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded  from the  petitioner to the respondent No. 1.

4.         Adv. Mr. Aditya Joshi  who appeared for the  respondent No. 3 submitted that  the revision  petition  may be dismissed because  long delay was  occurred in filing of  the reply by revision  petitioner .

5.         It is seen  that  though  initially  the original  O.P. No. 3/petitioner   herein  did not file the reply to the complaint  and though  the complaint  was proceeded  without reply  of the  original O.P.No. 3/petitioner   herein as per order dated 27/11/2015, but  original complainant /respondent No. 1 herein with  permission  of the Forum below  amended  the complaint  by adding   new para No. 7 –b  in it.  The said  new para No. 7-b was added in the  complaint  subsequent to  the passing  of no reply order on 27/11/2015 by the Forum below.  The  allegations are  made   in the said para No. 7-b against  the  original O.P.No. 3/petitioner herein.

6.         We find that  as the  permission  was sought  by the  original O.P.No. 3/petitioner  herein  in consequence  of the amendment   carried out in para No. 7-b of the complaint,  it is necessary to grant permission  to the  original O.P.No. 3/petitioner  herein  to file reply to the amendment  carried out  in para No. 7-b of the complaint.  However,  the cost of Rs. 10,000/- needs to  be saddled  on the original O.P. No. 3/petitioner herein  for payment to the original complainant /respondent No. 1 herein. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          The revision petition  is  allowed  subject to cost.

ii.          The impugned order dated 16/07/2018 passed in consumer complaint No. 523/2014 by the  District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  by which  the application  dated 18/01/2018 filed by the O.P.No. 3 has been rejected is hereby set aside , subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the original  O.P. No. 3/petitienr  herein to the  original complainant /respondent No. 1 herein.

iii.         The said cost  be paid  within  one month from today.

iv.        The reply filed by the O.P. No. 3/petitioner herein along with  application dated 18/01/2018 be taken on record if the aforesaid  cost of Rs.10,000/-  is paid by the  O.P.No. 3/petitioner herein  to the original complainant /respondent No. 1 herein within one month  from today.

v.         The learned  Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  shall  verify the payment of cost  as above before  taking  reply on record.

vi.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.