Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
Heard Ms.Varsha Chavan-Advocate for the revisionist.
This revision petition is directed against a direction contained in the order sheet dated 30/3/2012 in consumer complaint no.53/2012, Mrunalini Bendre v/s. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and others; passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. As per the impugned direction, since the revisionists who were opponent nos.1 to 6 in the original complaint remained absent, directed to proceed ex-parte i.e. in their absence, except opponent nos.4 & 5 (Mr.Mukesh Kothari & M/s.Carnation Auto India Pvt. Ltd.). On that day opponent no.4 was given time to file written version recording their appearance and in respect of opponent no.5 the observation is to the effect that the notice sent to them returned unserved with postal remark, “Add. Left.” Revision petition as per prayer clause in revision memo, appears to be for setting aside ex-parte order against the revisionists (as applicable, supra).
In the instant case, since the revisionists/opponents (except original opponent nos.4&5) against whom it was directed to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte since they failed to remain present; no illegality could be attached to adopting of such course. Since these revisionists against whom the order was passed, in view of Rule 4(7) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules 2000 r/w. Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as ‘Act’ for brevity), the course of action taken by the forum is proper. It is not the case of either exercising the jurisdiction not vested in it by the law or the forum has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. As such, it is not the case to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Commission u/sec.17(1)(b) of the Act.
Before parting with the order, we may observe that though ex-parte, revisionists/opponents against whom such an order was passed, can appear and participate into the proceeding at the stage they choose to put their appearance. The question would arise only if they want to file their written version, belatedly on their appearance and in those circumstances the issue which may be raised can be dealt with according to law.
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the revision petition and, as such, the revision petition stands dismissed in limine.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 10th July, 2012.
