05.04.2024:

ORDER

BY MR. K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

01.   This is an Appeal filed by the opposite party No.1 & 2 in CC No.229/2023 on the file of Bangalore Urban IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dated: 24.01.2024.

02.   The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Commission below.

03.   The matter is set for hearing on admission and we examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and the documents enclosed to the Appeal memo.  Further, heard    learned counsel for Appellants. He submits that, as on the date CC No.229/2023 is set to hear arguments before the District Commission. In such circumstances, to avoid delay and to do justice to the parties to the complaint, it would be just and proper to dispense with the issuance of notice of this Appeal to be served on Respondent.

04.   Learned counsel for Appellant/Ops submits that, on 28.12.2023, copy of the complaint is received by OP No.1. According to him the limitation starts from the date of receipt of copy of the complaint along with the notice and when he admits notice alone was served and the OP received copy of the complaint before the Commission on 28.12.2023 could be acceptable in view of the ratio laid down on the said point by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. To satisfy ourselves we have perused the order-sheet dated: 28.12.2023, where  could see counsel for OP No.1 has made an endorsement for having received the copy of the complaint, it is therefore limitation starts from the said date as contended has considerable force. We have to make mention from the proceeding sheet   that notice in the complaint was issued on 11.09.2023 as per Annexure-F and as per track consignment, it was served on 16.11.2023. It is submitted with no enclosures, which could be said substantiated from the proceeding sheet since the Advocate for OP received copy of the complaint only on 28.12.2023.  However, the District Commission without perceiving these vital aspects of the matter proceed to pass the impugned order dated: 24.01.2024 that, OP No.1 has lost his right to file version beyond 45 days has to be held unsustainable.  In such conclusion, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently  ordered to set aside the impugned order dated: 24.01.2024 passed at Annexure-A in CC No.224/2023 and directed the District Commission to  permit OP No.1 to file version and  if already received  the version record the same in the proceeding sheet and permit the OP to file affidavit evidence and documents if any.  The delay of 09 days in filing this Appeal stands condoned for the reasons sworn in the affidavit enclosed to the said I.A.   It is needless to say to afford opportunity to both parties and decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible not later than 03 months from the date of receipt of the order.  Accordingly Appeal stands disposed-off. 

05.    Provide copy of this order to the concerned District Commission and   the parties to the Appeal for their reference to implement the order.

         Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

KNMP*