This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in this M.A. case which has been filed for setting aside the order of ex parte hearing.
The argument highlighted by both sides already have been heard by this District Commission.
Perused the petition filed u/s 38 (8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also examined the W/O filed against the said petition.
In this case the op/ applicant has filed the said application for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that after receiving notice the op due to non-availability of the documents and on account of pendency of official process the op failed to file the v.nama and written statement within time.
On the other hand the op alleged that the petition filed by the applicant/ op is not at all maintainable and it has been filed for delaying the disposal of this case.
From the petition filed u/s 38(8) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that the op/ applicant side received the notice of the C.C. case no. 132 of 2022 well ahead but due to pendency of official process and on account of non-availability of documents, the op failed to file the W/V within time. It further appears that the W/V has been filed on 27.12.2022 which is after a long gap of service of notice. Under this position and in view of the judgement passed in New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Which is passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court the prayer of the applicant who is the op of C.C. case no. 132 of 2022 cannot be allowed. Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observed that no W/V can be entertained after 45 days from the date of service of notice. This judgment has been passed in (2020) 5 SCC 757.
Considering all the above noted factors this District Commission is of the view that the prayer of the applicant of this M.A. case for setting aside the ex parte order cannot be allowed.
Thus, it is accordingly,
Ordered
that this M.A. case being no. 86 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
The prayer of the applicant who is the op of C.C. case no. 132 of 2022 for setting aside the ex parte order is rejected on contest.
No order is passed as to costs.
