Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Herbert A. Naronha on behalf of the Revisionist.
[2] This revision petition is directed against the eventual facts recorded in the order-sheet dated 21/10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2011, Himmatlal H. Shah Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., pending on the file of the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity). It is recorded therein that on that date Adv. E. P. Keswani, lawyer on behalf of the Complainant therein was present and the Revisionist/original Opponent was absent. Revisionist/original Opponent failed to file its written version and, therefore, matter was adjourned to 12/12/2011 for hearing without written version.
[3] It may be pointed out that there is no order passed and/or event recorded in the impugned order-sheet dated 21/10/2011, supra which would warrant invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission as per provisions of Section-17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). It is not a case that the Forum was exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, on the previous date viz.21/9/2011 Adv. B. S. Talwar had appeared before the Forum on behalf of the Revisionist/original Opponent and sought time to file written version and which was accordingly granted till 21/10/2011. However, since on 21/10/2011 the Opponent and its counsel remaining absent and did not file any written version, the Forum as per procedure prescribed, proceeded further to hear the matter in absence of the written version. The Forum did not commit any wrong in doing that.
[4] In the instant case, as reflected from the submissions made on behalf of the Revisionist/original Opponent that it is anxious to get introduced the written version belatedly after the events were recorded as per order-sheet dated 21/10/2011, supra and the matter stood adjourned to 12/12/2011. Therefore, in such a case, to meet its anxieties, the Revisionist ought to have made proper application (after meeting out a proper case) before the Forum to get belatedly accepted the written version and thereupon hearing both the sides, the Forum could have considered such request on its own merit. On the subject there are previous decisions of this Commission as well as decision of the Apex Court in the matters of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank ~ 2002-(2)-CPJ-7-(SC).
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the revision petition and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision is not admitted and stands dismissed summarily.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 28th February, 2012
