Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member

The instant Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 vide order no. 09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas at Baruipur (in short ‘District Commission’) in connection with Consumer Complaint Case no. CC/186/2019 whereby the Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:-

“order no. 09

  04.09.2020

The Complainant files a petn. along with paper publication dated 13.03.2020 in the Ajkal Patrika. The OP No. 1 has not turned up. Hence, the case do proceed ex parte.

To 13.11.2020 for filing evidence by the Complainant.”

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the Ld. District Commission the Revisionist/Petitioner/OP, Director of TATA Motors Finance Limited has preferred the present Revision Petition on 17.03.2021 and sought for relief/reliefs more particularly detailed in the prayer portion of the Revision Petition.

Respondent No. 1, Pintu Chakraborty as Complainant instituted the consumer complaint case on 11.11.2019 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered and numbered as CC/186/2019 against the OPs including the Revisionist/Petitioner herein with the allegations of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. In the said complaint proceeding Opposite Party no. 1 did not turn up despite service of notice through paper publication (Ajkal, the Bengal Daily Newspaper). Consequently, by virtue of impugned order the complaint case was proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Parties and the next date was fixed on 13.11.2020 for filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant.

It reveals from the case record that by dint of order dated 19.02.2021 (vide order no. 13) the case was fixed for hearing of argument and submission of BNA. In the said order the Ld. District Commission was pleased to hold that notice upon OP No. 1 was served through paper publication pursuant to order dated 28.02.2020 but OP No. 1 did not turn up. Ld. District Commission was further pleased to hold that the statutory period of filing written version has already been over. Hence, the prayer of OP No. 1 was considered and rejected. On that particular date the other OPs being no. 2 and 3 did not file their evidence on affidavit in spite of specific order.

In the Revision Petition the Revisionist/Petitioner has highlighted certain facts and law points which cannot be and should not be adjudged at this juncture. It has been categorically admitted that the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist/Petitioner attended the District Commission on 18^th February, 2021 in the said complaint proceeding and thereafter on 19^th February, 2021. The Petitioners through their Ld. Counsel filed an application seeking time to file the written version before the Ld. District Commission and the said prayer was rejected. It is the further admission of the Revisionist/Petitioner that due to inadvertence they missed the circulation of notice through paper publication. Curious enough to note here that the Revisionist/Petitioner has not challenged the subsequent orders passed by the District Commission in the said complaint proceeding. Furthermore, the Revisionist/Petitioner has not also challenged the order dated 19.02.2021 (vide order no. 13) whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to reject the prayer of OP No. 1 for filing written version and fixed the next date of hearing argument. Reasons best known to the Revisionist/Petitioner as to why they did not assail the subsequent orders specially the last order dated 19.02.2021 passed in the complaint proceeding. Simply challenging the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 the Revisionist/Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition. In our considered view it will not be prudent, just and wise to set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 at this belated stage. The Revisionist/Petitioner has hopelessly failed to bring any iota of cogent document or evidence to establish that there were serious irregularity or illegality in the impugned order.

Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of both sides and regard being had to the proposition of law we hold and firmly hold that the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed in the complaint proceeding by the Ld. District Commission does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. In fact, we do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the observations of the Ld. District Commission. It is the settled principles of law that written version has to be filed within the stipulated period as enumerated in the Consumer Protection Act. It is crystal clear from the materials available on record that the present Revisionist/Petitioner did not appear in the complaint proceeding and did not also file the written version within the stipulated period. Such aspect speaks a lot against the trustworthiness of the Revisionist/Petitioner. That being the position we are constrained to hold that the present Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner/OP is liable to be dismissed.

It is, therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the present Revision Petition being RP No. 14/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent/Complainant but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Let the order dated 04.09.2020 (vide order no. 09) passed by the Ld. District Commission in complaint proceeding no. CC/186/2019 is hereby affirmed.

Ld. District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint case as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date hereof.

Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Interim Stay granted on 22.03.2021 be vacated forthwith.

Note accordingly.