The instant revision petition is directed against the order no. 7 dated 12/10/2017 passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda in consumer case no. 19 of 2017. The gist of the revision case is that one Mr. Mukundo Chandra Mondal filed a consumer complaint against the revisionist (OP no. 3) and other two Ops on 13/4/2017. On 5/09/2017 the date of filing W.V on the part of the revisionist (OP no. 3) was fixed on 12/10/2017. But for non-filing of the W. V on that date, the Ld. Forum passed an order (order no. 7) on 12/10/2017 to the effect that the case be heard ex parte against the revisionist (OP no. 3).  Being aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has filed this revision petition.

After admission of the revision petition, both sides were asked to appear before this Commission on 20/01/2020 by sending notices to contest the case. It appears from postal consignment track that the notice sent to respondent no. 2 that is Shane Ahmad Owaris has returned with remark “left”. The other to respondents that is Mukundo Chandra Mondal (respondent no. 1) and Serajul Islam respondent no. 3 had received the notices on 03/01/2020 and 30/12/2019 respectively, but they have not appeared before this Commission to contest their cases. Only the revisionist has appeared through his Ld. Advocate who canvassed his argument which has been duly been heard. Ld. Advocate argued that on 05/09/2017, he filed an unduly filled up Vakalatnama and also a petition praying for time for filing W.V. But due to such technical glitches, his prayer had not been considered. Even no communication had been received by them later on from the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda. Later they came to know that their case has been placed for ex parte hearing on 12/10/2017. Thereafter, they appeared several times before the Ld. forum and filed W.V on 29/01/2018. He also submitted that the case is very much open as the same has not yet been reached its finality. So, they should be given an opportunity to contest the case. Otherwise, they will have to face irreparable loss.

                                                            DECISION WITH REASONS

            Gone through the revision petition, documents in the records and have perused the orders of different dates including the order in question of the Forum. It is evident during the said orders that after passing the order for hearing ex parte against the OP no. 3 (present revisionist) on 12/10/2017 an order was passed on 19/01/2018 for keeping the W.V with the record as submitted by them. And accordingly, the same had received by the office on the same date with official seal. Moreover, the copy of the said W.V has been received by the complaint (here respondent no.1) with his signature on the body of the W.V. It is also seen that the revisionist appeared on several dates with petitions and that had not also been mentioned in the orders. The revisionist filed an application on 27/04/2018 under order 9 rule 7 of CPC 1908 but there is no reflection of it in the order of the Forum.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission thinks that for the sake of natural justice the revisionist should get an opportunity to contest the case in the Forum.

Hence it is,

                                                                       ORDERED

That the revision petition is and be same is allowed without cost. The impugned order no. 7 dated 12/10/2017 of the Ld. Forum be set aside and the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Malda is directed to accept the W.V filed by the revisionist and an opportunity be given to them to contest the case.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.