Per Hon’ble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
This revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 31/08/2013 proceeding against the opponent no.1 without a written version. The original complaint no.56 of 2012 was filed in the year 2012. The complaint was adjourned from time to time. The complaint was admitted on 25/05/2012 and was adjourned for filing the written version by the opponents. On 31/08/2013, complainant moved an application for deleting names of opponent nos.2 to 6 and to proceed against opponent no.1 only. On 31/08/2013, the District Forum passed an ex-parte order against the opponent no.1 and deleted the names of opponent nos.2 to 6. Aggrieved by the said order, opponent has filed this revision petition.
Heard Mr.S.B.Bhatagunaki-Advocate for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.A.Vajantri-Advocate for the respondent.
Advocate for the complainant had opposed the revision petition on the ground that the revision petitioner remained absent from time to time and not filed the written version and, hence, the complaint was proceeded ex-parte.
The Learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that many employees of the opponent no.1 had left the job and, hence, written version could not be filed in time and prayed that in the interest of justice, the order passed by the forum be set aside and the opponent may please be allowed to file the written version.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent legislation and Fora are established for delivering speedy justice by following a summary enquiry. The District Forum as per the object of the Act proceeded ex-parte. However, in the interest of justice, we find that the revision petitioner be given an opportunity to plead their case, however, subject to payment of costs of `20,000/- to the respondent /original complainant. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Revision petition is allowed.
Revision petitioner is hereby directed to file their written version along with affidavit on the next date before the forum subject to payment of costs of `20,000/- to the respondent. On payment of costs only the District Forum may allow the revision petitioner to file written version and affidavit.
Pronounced on 19th December, 2013.
