SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

The instant Revision Petition has been filed by the revisionists/complainants challenging the order being no.26 dated 21.06.2022 in connection with CC case being no.  CC/455/2016 wherein the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to accept the written version filed by the opposite party subject  to payment  of cost and further be pleased to set aside the order of ex-parte  already passed against the opposite party. Being aggrieved with such order, the complainants/revisionists have preferred the instant revision petition before this Commission.

By filing the instant revision petition, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainants/revisionists has submitted that the Ld. Commission below, despite  observing the correct views regarding filing of the written version, an opportunity for filing the same has been given to the opposite party subject to payment of cost and the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to set aside the order of ex-parte  against him which causes gross mistake/wrong committed by the Ld. Trial Commission. The Ld. Advocate has  further added that repeated chances have been given to the opposite party for filing written version but the OP did not pay any heed in the aforesaid matter.  The fact remains that the OP is very reluctant to file written version within the stipulated period of time.  Accordingly, the Ld. Advocate has prayed for setting aside the order being no. 26 dated 21.06.2022 with a further prayer for fixing the matter ex-parte against the opposite party.

Ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite party has raised vehement objection against the submissions advanced by the complainants/revisionists. Ld. Advocate has argued that the OP has appeared on 10.03.2022 as per order passed by the State Commission and approached to the office concerned for filing the written version. But the date has been fixed on 30.03.2022 and as  such the said office  concerned has asked for filing the same on 30.03.2022  before  the concerned bench. But  30.03.20022 has been declared holiday and as such 20.06.2022 has been fixed as a next date.  The Ld. Advocate has also submitted that on the aforesaid date the OP has already filed his written version alongwith cost amounting to Rs. 2000/- . There is no such wrong  or mistake in passing the order impugned and accordingly the Ld. Advocate has prayed  for dismissal of the instant  Revision Petition with exemplary costs.

We have heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for both the parties at length and in full.

We have considered the submissions advanced by both parties.

We have meticulously perused  all materials available on the record.

We have carefully perused  the order of First Appeal being no. A/1297/2017 (arising out of CC case being no. CC/455/2016) dated 09.01.2020 passed by this Commission wherefrom it appears to us that this Commission has been pleased to allow the aforesaid appeal, to set aside the judgement and order passed by the Ld. Trial Commission and to send back the matter in open remand. This Commission has also been pleased to give direction  to Ld. concerned DCDRC to allow the appellant/opposite party to disclose  his defence in the form of written version and dispose the petition of complaint according to law.

It is fact that in Revision Petition being no. RP/44/2021, this Commission has been pleased to give one further opportunity to the revisionist/opposite party for filing written version in terms  of the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in A/1297/2017 but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- to the respondents /complainants.  The revisionist/opposite party was also directed to appear before the concerned Trial Commission and to file written version, to pay cost to the complainants on 10.03.2022.

From the above scenario, there is no difficulty to realize that the opposite party has gotten two chances to file his written version before the concerned Trial Commission. But he has filed to file the same.  There is no hesitation to say that the performance of the opposite party was not so happy and satisfactory regarding filing of the written version before the concerned Trial Commission.  In this regard, the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to hold correct view which is reproduced as follows :-

“but the statement made by the OP in his affidavit is not at all trustworthy, as because the written version filed by the OP, bears the seal of Notary dated 21.06.2022, if she was ready to file the written version on 10.03.2022 then the same ought to have sworn on 10.03.2022 itself, which speaks that the written version was neither ready on 10.03.2022 nor on subsequent date i.e. on 30.03.2022.”

We have carefully perused the aforesaid affidavit wherefrom it appears to us that the observation, in this respect, taken by the Ld. Trial Commission is very correct and justified.  But it is not justified and proper to provide further opportunity to the opposite party to file the written version subject to payment of cost. Moreover, there is no such provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set  aside/modify/vary of its own order  passed by the Ld. Trial Commission, but unfortunately the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to set aside of its own ex-parte order against the opposite party which is certainly against the law. It is  remembered that the Act 1986 has been enacted exclusively for the interest  of the consumers and necessary protection should be given to the consumer/consumers.  If the Commission/Commissions fails/fail to take proper actions against the hazardous goods and services, the object of the said Act will be frustrated. In pursuant to the case record it appears to us that the instant case has been filed in the year 2016.  Now it is the year 2023.  Approximately 6/7 years have already been elapsed.  So the matter should be heard and disposed of as soon as possible for the sake of the complainants/consumers.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid observations and for the finality of litigation, no opportunity for filing  the  written version should be given to  the opposite  party subject to payment of cost and the same should not be accepted in any way.  In this respect, the order being no. 27 dated 28.07.2022 clearly reveals that the Ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite party has tried to pay the cost but the same has not been accepted by the complainants.  Accordingly we allow the RP and set aside last three paragraphs of the said order impugned dated 21.06.2022 and the remaining portion of the said order impugned is unaltered.  The Ld. DCDRC is hereby directed to fix a date for filing evidence on affidavit, if any, by the complainants and  let the case do proceed ex-parte  against  the opposite parry. 

Parties are directed to appear before the concerned DCDRC on 18.08.2023 for taking further direction from the Ld. concerned Trial Commission.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Note in the register.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. Trial Commission for compliance and for taking necessary action.