This is a case of concurrent decision passed by the Ld. District Forum as well as the State commission in favour of the Respondents/Complainants.

2.       Grievance of the Petitioner/Opposite Party is that it was non-suited for the purpose of contesting the suitable Complaint inspite of having filed an Application for setting aside the Order of Proceeding Ex-parte against the Petitioner, passed by the Ld. District Forum on 05/04/2023.

3.       A Copy of the relevant Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner is on Record as Annexure-A7.

4.       Considered;

5.       It was the own averment on behalf of the Petitioner that Notice on the Complaint had been served upon the wife of the Authorized Representative of the Petitioner namely, Mr. Harish Kumar. However, being unaware of the implications she brought it  to his notice only three days before the date of hearing in the District Forum.  On account of non-appearance/non-filing of the Written Version within a statutory permissible period from the date of service which the Ld. District Forum found to be 22/03/2023, the Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte.

6.       It however, filed the Application for setting aside the Ex-Parte Order only on the next actual date of hearing i.e 23/05/2023, which was more that 02 months after the date of service of the Notice, and clearly beyond even the extendable period of 15 days over and above the 30 days statutorily granted to an Opposite Party for filing its Written Version.

7.       In view of the decision of the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757”, the Ld. District Forum in the given circumstances could not have granted permission to the Petitioner file its Written Version even if the same had been filed the same alongwith its Application for setting aside the impugned Order.  Of course, the Written Version actually was never filed.

8.       So the grievance of the Petitioner/Opposite Party that it had been wrongly non-suited for the purpose of contesting the Complaint on merits is untenable.

9.       We therefore, find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below which have gone in favour of the Respondent/Complainant on the basis of its uncontroverted material/Evidence placed before the District Forum.

10.     Dismissed.

11.     No Orders as to costs.