Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed at the behest of the Revisionist/Petitioner viz. the United Medical Practioners and Establishment Services Private Limited (who was OP No. 2 in the original complaint case) under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Respondents (who were respectively the Complainant and OP No. 2 in the complaint case)  assailing the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 vide order no. 22 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nadia at Krishnanagar in connection with Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/16/2021 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:-

“Order No. 22

DTD-21.03.2023

Today is fixed for evidence.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present.

Ld. Advocate for OP No. 1 is present.

Complainant files Affidavit-in-Chief. Copy served upon OP No. 1.

Today OP No. 2 is absent without steps. He lost the opportunity to file questionnaire.

To 27.04.2023 for filing questionnaire by OP No. 1.”

2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the Revision Petition, Order of the District Commission and other materials available on record are that:-

Respondent No. 1 herein as Complainant instituted the complaint case being CC No. 16 of 2020 against the Opposite Parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and prayed for certain relief/reliefs as sought for in paragraph no. 17 of the petition of complaint. OP Nos. 1 and 2 entered their appearance in the complaint proceeding and had been contesting the case by filing written version. By dint of Order No. 21 dated 31.01.2023 the said complaint proceeding was fixed on 21.03.2023 for filing evidence on behalf of the Complainant. On that particular date OP Nos. 1 and 2 were found absent without steps. Thereafter, on 21.03.2023 Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit after serving copy of the same upon Opposite Party No. 1. On that particular date Opposite Party No. 2 was again found absent without step and as a consequence of which OP No. 2 lost the opportunity to file questionnaire and the next date was fixed on 27.04.2023 for filing questionnaire by OP No. 1.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 OP No. 2 as Revisionist/Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition on various grounds as highlighted in the body of the Revision Petition. It has been contended that the Ld. District Commission failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order; that the impugned order is totally against the principles of natural justice; that the Ld. District Commission ought to have given the Revisionist/Petitioner an opportunity to file show cause for his non-appearance on that very date; that the Ld. District Commission deprived the Revisionist/Petitioner from his right to file questionnaire as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; that the Ld. District Commission caused gross violation of the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order; that the Ld. District Commission could have passed an order granting liberty to the Revisionist/OP No. 2 to file questionnaire and to contest the complaint proceeding. On all such grounds the Revisionist/Petitioner has prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.

4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order of the Ld. District Commission, other relevant records and the rival contentions of the parties.

5.  During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revisionist/Petitioner has argued much on the point of debarring OP No. 2 from filing questionnaire without affording an opportunity.   It has been also argued that OP No. 2 had been contesting the complaint case by filing written version.  According to the Ld. Counsel the impugned order of the Ld. Commission below is unethical, misconceived, band in law against the principles of natural justice and as such the said order is liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.  It has been further argued that the present Revisionist/Petitioner has a good prima facie case to face the trial.  Ld. Counsel has prayed for passing appropriate order.

6. On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1/ Manorama Hospitex has fairly conceded that OP No. 2(Present Revisionist/Petitioner) had been contesting the complaint case by filing written version.  It is also submitted that by dint of impugned order OP No. 2 was debarred from filing questionnaire.  It is further submitted that for the purpose of just and effective adjudication of the complaint proceeding the involvement of all the parties are urgently required and the complaint proceeding should be disposed of after contested hearing.  Ld. Counsel has fairly submitted that Respondent No. 1/Complainant has no objection if the present Revision Petition is allowed giving the Revisionist/OP No. 2 an opportunity to file questionnaire in the complaint proceeding.

Considering the submissions of the respective Ld. Counsels for the respective parties to the Revision Petition we have no hesitation to conclude that the Ld. Commission below ought to have given an opportunity to the present Revisionist Petitioner/OP No. 2 for filing questionnaire in the complaint proceeding.  Thus, being the position we hold that the District Commission went wrong in passing the impugned order.  It is apparent from the case record that the District Commission has not given valid reasons for debarring OP No. 2 from filing questionnaire.  Undoubtedly, both the parties to the Revision Petition are willing to get contested disposal of the complaint proceeding.  Thus, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order of the District Commission is required to be interfered with.

Resultantly, the present Revision Petition succeeds.

The impugned order of the District Commission is hereby set aside.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the present Revision Petition being RP No. 62/2023 be and the same is allowed on consent without any order as to costs.

The impugned order dated 21.03.2023 vide Order No. 22 passed by the Ld. District Commission in consumer complaint case No. CC/16/2021 is hereby set aside.

Ld. District Commission is directed to afford an opportunity to OP No. 2 to contest the complaint proceeding by filing questionnaire.

Both sides are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission, Nadia, Krishnanagar on 24.06.2024 for receiving further order/orders.

Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Interim stay, if any, be vacated forthwith.

Note accordingly.

Registry of the Commission is directed to hand over free copy of this order to the contesting parties as early as possible.