Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/20/17

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH RAJPUT - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                    

                            REVISION PETITION NO. 17 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 25.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.212/2019 by the District Commission, Vidisha)  

 

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,

YAMUNA NAGAR GATE,

OLD MUMBAI PUNE HIGHWAY,

AKURDI, PUNE-411 035

            AND

BRANCH OFFICE-PLOT NO.1 TO 3, 6 & 7

WINDSOR MADHYA, VILLAGE-DAMKHEDA,

NEAR VISHAL MEGA MART, KOLAR ROAD,

BHOPAL-406 380                                                                                         …          PETITIONERS.

 

                         VERSUS

1. MUKESH RAJPUT,

    S/O SHRI KAMAL SINGH RAJPUT,

    H.NO.349, WARD NO.9, NEAR KANJI HOUSE,

    STOOP ROAD, POST-SANCHI,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.)-464 661

 

2. SRI RAM AUTO AND SERVICE STATION,

    NEAR MANOHAR TALKIES, VIDISHA BHOPAL ROAD,

    VIDISHA (M.P.)                                                                                   …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :   MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :   MEMBER

                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

                 Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                 None for the respondents.

O R D E R

(Passed On 13.01.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                                       

                       The opposite party no.1& 2/petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 25.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.212/2019 by

 

-2-

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice of complaint, the petitioners/opposite parties failed to appear before the District Commission on 25.01.2020, therefore an order to proceed ex-parte was passed against them.  Challenging the said order the opposite party no. 1 & 2 have preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioners could not get an opportunity to put their case/defense before the District Commission. 

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ Advocate Shri Nitesh Bhalla by mistake could not note the date fixed in the case in the his diary and because of this reason he could not appear before the District Commission and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, on 29.01.2020 they had filed reply to the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1.  Thus, the petitioners were wrongly proceeded ex-parte.  He further submits that if the impugned order is not set-aside, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss.

4.                None appeared for the complainant/respondent no.1 as also the opposite party no. 3/respondent no. 3.

5.                On perusal of record, we find that the ground taken by the petitioners in the revision petition before us for non-appearance is contrary

-3-

to the ground shown for non-appearance before the District Commission. Notices were issued to the petitioners on 30.11.2019 by the District Commission. Thereafter the case was fixed on 04.01.2020. On that date service of notice on petitioners was awaited. Thereafter when the case was fixed on 25.01.2020, and none appeared for the opposite parties, the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 25.01.2020. Thereafter on 29.01.2020, the petitioners’ advocate has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte order which was rejected by the District Commission vide order dated 07.02.2020 stating that the said application is not maintainable as the District Commission has no power to set-aside the order proceeding ex-parte against the petitioners.

6.                It is pertinent to mention here that in the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC filed by the petitioners before the District Commission, it is stated that Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, an employee of the petitioners who was authorized by the petitioners to appear before the District Commission has gone out of Bhopal for some other work of the petitioners’ company and their counsel Shri Nitesh Bhalla was busy in Case No.11/2019 (Govt. of M.P.Vs Piyush Saxena) under the POSCO Act before the Sessions Court and therefore neither the authorized representative nor advocate could appear before the District Commission when the case was called and therefore the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against them.

-4-

7.                In revision petition before us, the ground taken is that the petitioners’ Advocate Shri Nitesh Bhalla by mistake could not note the date fixed in the case in the his diary and because of this reason he could not appear before the District Commission and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. However, we find that the neither the affidavit of Shri Nitesh Bhalla in this regard nor copy of his diary has been filed to substantiate the grounds taken by the petitioners.

8.                Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have taken different grounds before the District Commission and before this Commission for non-appearance before the District Commission, the two grounds are totally different. Thus, we find that the ground taken by the petitioners for non-appearance before the District Commission is not acceptable as appears to be false.     

9.                In revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  From the record we find that the District Commission has committed no error while proceeding the opposite party no.1 & 2 /petitioners ex-parte.

10.              In view of the above discussion and under facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any jurisdictional error or material

 

-5-

irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, it is upheld.

11.              In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

         (A. K. Tiwari)    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member           Member                     Member