Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member

Both the Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties to the Revision Petition are present.

Today is fixed for passing order upon the Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner.

Considered the submissions advanced by the respective Ld. Counsels for the respective parties to the Revision Petition on 22.09.2023.

Perused the contention of the Revision Petition.

Seen the materials available on record including the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 vide order no. 17 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/232/2020 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:

Order no. 17 dated 22.04.2022

Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant is present.  No step is taken by the OPs, neither any written version is filed. Today is fixed for filing written version and there is specific direction that in default case shall proceed ex parte. Since, no written version is filed, no further opportunity can be given and thus fix 21.06.2022 for ex parte hearing.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the District Commission the OP/Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited as Revisionist/Petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (I)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  In the body of the Revision Petition the Revisionist/Petitioner has clearly highlighted the grounds for preferring such Revision Petition.  The Revisionist/Petitioner has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.

During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revisionist/Petitioner has candidly submitted that due to prevailing Pandemic Covid-19 the Revisionist/Petitioner could not present the written version before the Ld. District Commission.  It has been alleged that no notice was ever served upon the Revisionist/Petitioner from the end of the Complainant at any point of time.  On all such grounds the Revisionist/Petitioner has prayed for allowing the Revision Petition.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Dr. Pranab Kumar Mondal has fairly submitted that Respondent No. 1 has no objection if the present Revision Petition is allowed subject to payment of adequate costs.

Considering all aspects from all angles and regard being had to the submissions of both sides and keeping in mind the prevailing situation due to Pandemic Covid-19 I am of the concrete view that the present Revision Petition should be allowed subject to payment of costs.  I hold that the present Revisionist/Petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the complaint case after filing the written version.  Thus being the position the impugned order requires to be interfered with.

Thus, the Revision Petition succeeds.

It is, therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the present Revision Petition being RP No. 85/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- (C.P) to be paid by the Revisionist/Petitioner to Respondent No.1/Complainant.

The impugned order dated 22.04.2022 vide order no. 17 passed by the District Commission in complaint case no. CC/232/2020 is hereby set aside.

Ld. District Commission, Kolkata, Unit-III(South) is directed to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with the law after accepting the written version of the present Revisionist/OP no. 1 and vacating the ex parte order passed on 22.04.2022 against the present Revisionist/OP.

The Revisionist/Petitioner is directed to file the written version positively on 16.10.2023 before the Ld. District Commission.  Both sides are also directed to appear before the concerned District Commission on 16.10.2023 for receiving further order/orders.

Interim order, if any, be vacated forthwith.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Commission forthwith for information and taking necessary action.

Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Note accordingly.