Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/19/101

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PRAKASH BHURADIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SURJEET SINGH

17 Jul 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                    

                                  REVISION PETITION NO. 101 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 04.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.512/2018 by the District Forum, Indore)

 

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA.                                                                                                        …          PETITIONER.

 

Versus

                 

JAI PRAKASH BHURADIA & ORS.                                                                                              …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                        

                                      O R D E R

17.07.2019

 

           None for the petitioner.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

                        This revision is directed against the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (For short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.512/2018, whereby the Forum has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2.                     The Forum taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541= IV (2011) CPJ35 (SC) dismissed the said application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to set-aside the ex-parte order.

3.                     Having considered the impugned order, the Forum in my considered view has committed     no     error    in    dismissing   the petitioner’s application for setting aside the ex-parte order, for want of jurisdiction. In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 and 37 has observed as under:

              36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set-aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.

 

               37.  The Legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders.  Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court.  The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.

 

 

 

-2-

4.                     In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the revision petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the order dated 26.02.2019 by which the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte, in accordance with law.

5.                     With the aforesaid liberty, the revision petition is dismissed.                                    

      

                                                                                     (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)           

                                                                                        President