Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/103/2022

Managing director - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.P.Patrick - Opp.Party(s)

maimoona badsha

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI   3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH     ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.103 of 2022

 

(Against the Order dated 09.06.2022 passed in C.C. No.148/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South))

 

                                                     Orders, dated:31.01.2023

 

M/s. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.21, Greams Lane,

Off. Greams Road,

Chennai   600 006.              … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

  Versus  

 

D.P. Patrick,

S/o. Mr. Pitchamuthu,

No.53/27, Padisonpuram Lane,

‘D’ Castle Road,

Perambur Barrack Road,

Pulianthoppu,

Chennai   600 012.                          … Respondent/Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner / Opposite party : M/s. Maimoona Badsha

Respondent/Complainant                      : Served called absent 

 

     This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J.   President.   (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 09.06.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.148/2022 whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte for non-appearance of the opposite party before the District Commission even after the receipt of notice and consequently, adjourned the Case to 01.07.2022 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     The notice was served on the respondent but he has not chosen to appear before this Commission.  Hence, the respondent was called absent.   

3.     Heard the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party. This Revision Petitioner / Opposite party  was set exparte for non-appearance of the opposite party before the District Commission even after the receipt of notice.   When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner / Opposite party submits that the notice sent by the District Consumer Commission was delivered to the temporary Corporate Office of the revision petitioner instead of his permanent corporate office by the postal department.   When the temporary office was vacated, the said notice was misplaced and the notice of the hearing was handed over to the registered corporate office only on 05.07.2022.   Hence, the Opposite party was set exparte.  Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:09.06.2022.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the Opposite Party pending will further delay the matter and further, the non-appearance of the opposite party before the District Commission was neither willful nor wanton which was also evident from their petition.  Since the reasons assigned by the opposite party seems to be bonafide and also, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5.     In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 09.06.2022, passed in C.C. No.148/2022 by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite party shall file his Vakalath, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.148/2022 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law for its early disposal.

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                         R.SUBBIAH, J.

         MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/January/2023.