THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
Revision Petition No. 58/2019
The Manager,
Interglobe Aviation Ltd.,
Global Business Park,
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana
……….Appellant/s
(By Sri/Smt. C.K.Nandakumar, Adv.,)
V/s
C.R.Sundaresh, Advocate,
Mandara, Jaikumar Layout,
2nd Cross, Konanakunte,
Bangalore.
(Served – absent)
……….Respondent/s
:ORDER:
BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Revision Petition is filed by the Opposite Party against the order dated:02/03/2019 passed by Bangalore Urban I Additional District Commission in C.C.No.1628/2018, wherein the District Commission dismissed his application filed to permit him to file the version by condoning the delay for the reason that there is no power to entertain the Opposite Party to file the version after completion of stipulated period of 45 days and submitted before this Commission that the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service against them for refund of amount paid towards air tickets from Banglaore to Delhi. The complainant on the schedule date and time have not arrived the Airport for which they could not board the scheduled Flight to go to Bangalore to Delhi. Anyhow, they have arranged alternative Flight by receiving an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards air ticket. After that the complainant claimed for reimbursement of the said amount.
2. The learned advocate for Revision Petitioner further submits that after admission, the District Commission issued a notice and on the date of hearing, due to General Holiday on account of death of Hon’ble Minister of chemical and Fertilizer and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, the case was adjourned to 01/12/2018. On that day, their advocate filed vakalath and prayed time to file version. Subsequently, on 03.01.2019, the District Commission taken the version as not filed in spite of they trying to file version and posted for evidence of complainant. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, they have filed an application on 02.03.2019 to re-call the order passed on 05.01.2019 and permit them to file version. But the application was rejected without considering the reason for not filing the version. Hence, prays to set-aside the order and to direct the District Commission to receive the version in file.
3. Heard arguments.
4. On going through the order sheet produced by the Revision Petition, we noticed that after admission, the District Commission has issued a notice on 10.10.2018 for appearance on 12.11.2018 and on the very next day i.e., 13.11.2018 the case was called as on 12.11.2018 the State Government declared holiday due the sad demise of Central Minister Sri.H.N.Ananthkumar and posted to 01.12.2018. On 01.12.2018 one C.K.Nandu Kumar, Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of Opposite Party and prays time to file version and accordingly time was granted to file the version and posted the case on 27/12/2018. On 27/12/2018, the Opposite Party was absent and the District Commission was posted the case on 05.01.2019 for filing version as a last chance. On that day, the Opposite Party was not filed any version. On 05.01.2019 the District Commission taken the version as not filed. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party filed the above said application to permit him to file the version, which rejected for the reason that the Opposite Party has not filed the version within the stipulated time.
5. The reasons narrated in the Revision Petition are not satisfactory, because the sufficient time was provided by the District Commission to file the version. In-fact, at the initial stage, the notice was issued to the Opposite Party not only for their appearance, but to file the version also and one month time was provided to file the version and in spite of that, 15 days more time was also provided. Hence, in that time, the Opposite Party has not filed the version. Therefore, we noticed that no grounds made out by the Opposite Party before the District Commission for adjournment of case to file the version. Hence, we found the Opposite Party had not utilized the stipulated time to file the version. Hence, the District Commission has rightly rejected the prayer made in the accompanying application filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. As such the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Intimate the order to both parties as well as District Commission
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
