dtd.09.03.2022

O R D E R

        BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.    This petition is filed U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986 by OP.1 & 2 aggrieved by the order dtd.19.10.2016 passed in CC/183/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ballari.  
2. The Commission examined the grounds of revision and impugned order dtd.19.10.2016 of the District Forum.
3. The proceedings of CC/183/2016 are filed along with Revision Petition. It is found from these proceedings that on 28.07.2016 Sri.C.S.Adv., filed vakalath for R1 & R2 and we could also see an endorsement that notice to R1 & R2 served on 27.06.2016 itself. Sec.13(a) of the CPA 1986 provides for filing of version within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. In other words, 45 days provided for OPs to file their version is outer limit. On 15.09.2016, advocate for OP prays time to file written version which came to be rejected, thereby adjourned for submission of affidavit of Complainant by 04.10.2016 and on 04.10.2016 matter adjourned to 19.10.2016 for Complainants evidence. On 19.10.2016 advocate files written version of OPs along with IA U/s.151 of CPC seeking permission to permit OPs to file written version even after 45 days, was came to be rejected, which is impugned here in this revision contending that the Respondent has wrongly mentioned the name of the company as Cholamandalam Vehicle Finance Co., Ltd., instead M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co., Ltd., The OP.1 & 2 had to report the same to the head office, which is situated at Chennai and necessary documents were also to be secured. As such some delay was caused which were not at all considered by the District Forum and recorded written version has not filed, is arbitrary, capricious and against law. It is to be noted herein that object of consumer laws is facilitating quicker disposal of the complaint and the procedure to be followed provided under the Act is summary. In such circumstances, the Commission could not find any irregularity or illegality or error committed by District Forum in passing impugned order. The grounds set out in this Revision Petition could not be considered in exercising of powers vested U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986.
4.  Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits with an observation that they are permitted to submit their affidavit evidence and documents if any to appreciate the materials placed on record by the Complainant to arrive at a right conclusion. The Commission further direct the District Forum to decide the dispute as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the order affording opportunity to both parties.
5. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*