Order No. 2                         Date: 23.08.2022

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1 is present and files affidavit of service of MA application upon the complainant. Let it be kept with the record.

The application U/S 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by opposite party no.1 is taken up for hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1as well as Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.1 states that opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of vehicle under the name and style Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  Opposite party no.1 though received the notice of the instant complaint case but due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic could not file W/V within the statutory period.  As such this Commission vide its order no.3 dated 05.01.2021 fixed the case ex parte as against opposite party no.1.

It is further stated by the Ld. Advocate of opposite party no.1 that the opposite party no.1 being a responsible and low abiding Company sent W/V to this Commission on 01.03.2021.  In support of his contention Annexure-A photocopy of postal receipt, copy of W/V annexed to the MA Application is referred.  In such context, Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.1prays for review of the order no.3 dated 05.01.2021 with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order passed against the opposite party no.1 and to allow him to contest the case.

During pandemic period, Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time extended the period of limitation which was lastly extended till 31.05.2022 [(2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 117]. 

Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states as follows:

‘The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.’

Now, in view of Section 40 of the Act, it is to be looked into whether there is any error in passing order no.3 dated 05.01.2021 by the Commission.

On scrutiny of the record, I find the first notice of the case was served upon the opposite party no.1 on 17.12.2020 during the pandemic period and  order no.3 dated 05.01.2021 fixing the case ex parte as against opposite party no.1 has also been passed as against opposite party no.1 in the pandemic period.

In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court mention above, the order passed by this Commission vide order no.3 dated 05.01.2021 is palpably erroneous as such liable to be reviewed and / or set aside.

So, the MA Application is allowed on contest. Order no. 3 dated 05.01.2021 as against opposite party no.1 is hereby reviewed and set aside.

Thus, the MA is disposed of.