Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/23

TRACKON COURIER (P) LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHIT SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

MS. SANGITA MOHARIR

08 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

REVISION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 27.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.288/2019 by the District Commission, Bhopal)

                                                    

TRACKON COURIERS PVT.LTD & ANR.                                                    …          PETITIONERS.

 

                Versus

 

MOHIT SHARMA & ANOTHER.                                                                     …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTINIG PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

08.07.2024

 

     Ms. Sangeeta Moharir, learned counsel for the petitioner.

     Shri Rahul Ganeshe, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

     None for the respondent no.2.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                 The petitioners/opposite party no.2 and 3 have filed this revision petition against the order dated 27.12.2019 (though Petitioner in its petition has stated as 28.012.2019) passed in C.C.No.288/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioner no.1 was proceeded ex-parte.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the notice issued to opposite party no.2/petitioner no.1was served but the petitioner failed to appear on 27.12.2019 before the District Commission and therefore the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner no.1.

 

-2-

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the notices issued to the opposite party no.2 and 3/petitioners by the District Commission were not properly served and therefore they could not appear before the District Commission and could not file their written statement. He therefore prayed that the impugned order proceeding ex-parte against the opposite party no.2 and 3/petitioners be set-aside and the opposite party no.2 and 3 be granted opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 

4.                After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the revision petition as also the impugned order, we find that on 23.09.2019 the District Commission directed to issue notices to the opposite parties which were issued on 24.09.2019 which was served on the opposite party no.1-bank on 25.09.2019. Again notice issued to the opposite party no.2/petitioner no.1 on 26.11.2019 for the date 27.12.2019 was served on the opposite party no.2/petitioner no.1 on 29.11.2019 which is evident from the track report (page 64).   When none appeared for the opposite party no.1-bank and the opposite party no.2/petitioner no. 1 the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party no.2/petitioner no.1 on 27.12.2019.

5.                The main contesting party opposite party no.3/petitioner no.2 local courier company by which the cheque sent by the complainant was not delivered was served through newspaper publication in Dainik Samay Jagat dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter the District Commission vide order dated 30.03.2021

-3-

proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner no.2. In such circumstances, we find that the petitioners were duly served and failed to appear before the District Commission, the District Commission has rightly proceeded ex-parte against them.

6.                In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission.  Under Section 47 (1)(b) in revision petition, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  Thus, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

7.                In the result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                   (A. K. Tiwari)              (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                Acting President                     Member