Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 08-09-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II, in C.C. No. 355/2016.

By such petition, it is stated by the Revisionist that due to belated receipt of vakalatnama from its H.O. in Bangalore, it could not appear before the Ld. District Forum on 29-08-2016.  On the next date, i.e., on 08-09-2016, its Ld. Advocate could not reach the Ld. Forum in time being stuck up in traffic congestion and on that day, the Ld. District Forum fixed the matter for ex parte hearing.  Although the Revisionist moved a petition for vacating the ex-parte order, the Ld. District Forum turned down its prayer necessitating this Revision.

By filing a W.O., it is stated by the Respondent/Complainant that in spite of receiving summon on 22-08-2016, the Revisionist did not appear before the Ld. District Forum on 29-08-2016.  Even thereafter also, the Revisionist did not move with due alacrity.  Thus, inferring inter alia that the instant Revision has been filed only to drag the matter, the Respondent/Complainant prayed for dismissal of the present Revision.

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record. 

Undisputedly, the Revisionist received summon in respect of the complaint case from the Ld. District Forum on 22-08-2016 and on 08-09-2016, the Ld. District Forum, it seems, taking grim view of the absence of the Revisionist before it on two consecutive dates, i.e., on 29-08-2016 and 08-09-2016, fixed the matter for ex parte hearing. 

Be it mentioned here that Sec. 13(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 entails that the Ld. District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,  refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum.

It appears from the Confonet website that the instant complaint was admitted on 02-08-2016 and the Ld. District Forum fixed 29-08-2016 for SR and appearance.  No cogent documentary proof is forthcoming before us to show that summon was posted by the Ld. District Forum on the very same day of admission of the complaint.  However, what becomes amply clear is the fact that the Ld. District Forum did not follow the rule book which requires that the opposite party should be accorded a window of 30 days to file its written version, if not allowed further 15 days time exercising its discretionary power under the Act. 

In any case, undisputedly summon being served upon the Revisionist on 22-08-2016, it deserved at least 30 days time hence to file its written version.  In such circumstances, it appears to us that in the interests of natural justice, the Ld. District Forum could fix another date before straightway fixing the matter for ex parte hearing on 08-09-2016 itself. 

On careful consideration of record, we find merit in the contention of the Revisionist that the impugned order runs counter to the statutory provisions of the 1986 Act.

In our view, the impugned order fails on the anvil of principal of natural justice and hence not sustainable in law.  Revision, thus, stands allowed. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 28-07-2017.  On that day, the Revisionist shall invariably file its written version. Thereafter, the Ld. District Forum shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.