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

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

Revision Petition No.118 of 2023

(Against the Order dated 14.07.2023 passed in C.C. No.122/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South))

                                                     Orders, dated:22.11.2023

M/s. Sundaram Home Finance Limited,

Formerly known as Sundaram BNP Paribas

Finance Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Corporate Office at:

Sundaram Towers, Home

No.46, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.             … Revision Petitioner /Opposite party.

- Versus –

1. R.K. Mohan Krishna,

S/o. Mr. Kailasam,                           

2. M. Pushpa,

W/o. R.K. Mohan Krishna,.

Currently having residence at:

No.174/2, 1^st Cross,

Nazabad,

Mysore – 10,

Karnataka State.                  … Respondents /Complainants 1 & 2.

For Rev. Petitioner / Opposite party  : M/s. A. Palaniappan

Respondents /Complainants 1 & 2   : Notice served 

     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 14.07.2023 passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.122/2023, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days and consequently, adjourned the Case to 03.08.2023 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     Heard the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.  Though notice has been served on the 1^st respondent / 1^st complainant, there is no representation for the 1^st respondent /1^st complainant.  The notice sent to the 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd complainant was returned with the postal endorsement as ‘unclaimed’.  Hence, the same can be construed as service of notice to the 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd complainant.  Therefore, the Respondents 1 & 2 were called absent.

3.     This Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days.  Hence, the Revision Petition.  When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite Party submitted that the District Commission has wrongly calculated the limitation period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party.  The non-filing of written version by the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party before the District Commission is neither wilful nor wanton.   Thus, he prays before this Commission for setting aside the exparte order dated:14.07.2023.  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.   Hence, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order so that, the Revision Petitioner will have a chance of contesting the case on merits.

4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 14.07.2023 passed in C.C. No.122/2023 by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in setting the Revision Petitioner / 3^rd  Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite Party shall file his Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.122/2023 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.SUBBIAH, J.

                                                                                   PRESIDENT.

 KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/ November/2023.