STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.

REVISION NO.93 OF 2016

(Against the judgment/order dated 26.05.2016 in Complaint Case No.169/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Maharajganj.)

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

Mahindra Tower, Faizabad Road, Lucknow.

On behalf of Branch Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

Gorakhpur Road, Maharajganj, District- Maharajganj. 

...............Revisionist

Vs

Prahlad Chaurasia, aged about 45 yrs.,

S/o Ram Sumer Chaurasia,

R/o Sidhwari, Bandhwar Khurd, Pharenda,

Post- Dagrupur, District Mahrajganj.

      ...............Opposite Party

     BEFORE:

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

    HON’BLE MR. RAM CHARAN CHOUDHARY, MEMBER

    For the Revisionist              : Sri Gopalji Srivastava, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party                 : None present.

    Dated: 27.06.16

ORDER

MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN (ORAL)

          Present revision has been filed by revisionist Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Services Ltd. under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 26.05.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in complaint No.169/15 Prahlad Chaurasia Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

          Revisionist Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. is the OP of said complaint case pending before District Consumer Forum, Mahrajganj. Vide impugned order dated 26.05.2016 application dated 27.04.2016 moved by OP/revisionist has been rejected by District Consumer Forum.

-2-

We have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and have gone through order dated 26.05.2016 as well as records of the case.

          It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that Hon’ble NCDRC has held in recent judgment pronounced on 26.05.2016 in first Appeal No.257/16 Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VS Dharampal that even in case where the OP fails to file written statement within time he may be permitted to participate in proceeding before the State Commission in accordance with law.

          We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist.

          Indisputably on 25.02.2016 in above complaint, revisionist/OP did not appear before District Consumer Forum and no written statement was filed, therefore District Consumer Forum passed order to proceed exparte against OP. Thereafter, on 27.04.2016 revisionist/OP moved application before District Consumer Forum for recalling above exparte order but vide impugned order District Consumer Forum has rejected the application dated 27.04.2016 moved by revisionist/OP on the ground that revisionist/OP has knowledge of the date before date of exparte order dated 25.02.2016 and the application dated 27.04.2016 has been moved after expiry of more than 2 months since the date of exparte order dated 25.02.2016. Therefore, District Consumer Forum has held in impugned order that in view of pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 1 (SC) he cannot permit revisionist/OP to file written statement after expiry of 45 days from the date of knowledge of complaint.

          We have perused the copy of judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in first Appeal No.257/16 Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VS Dharampal. In this judgment Hon’ble NCDRC has also placed reliance on the judgment

-3-

of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the National Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). However, in the interest of justice Hon’ble NCDRC has permitted OPs of the complaint to participate in proceeding before the State Commission in accordance with law.

          After having gone through judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of National Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. as well as judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC rendered in the case of Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VS Dharampal, we are of the view that District Consumer Forum has rightly rejected the application moved by revisionist/OP to recall exparte order.

          In view of above, impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum cannot said to be against law.

          Revision moved by revisionist/OP is dismissed with liberty to revisionist to move application before District Consumer Forum in the light of proposition laid down by Hon’ble NCDRC in the above case. If such application is moved before District Consumer Fourm by revisionist/OP, the District Consumer Forum shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously.

       (JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN)

        PRESIDENT

     (RAM CHARAN CHODUHARY)

MEMBER

Sarika