BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Thiru.S.M.MURUGESSHAN MEMBER
R.P.NO. 27/2015
(As against the order in CMP 35/2015 in CC 48/2013 dated 21.08.2015 on the file of DCDRF,Erode)
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
1.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited
101-105, Shiv Chambers Sector -11
C.B.D Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400 614
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited
No.8, Neela Complex, Pari Nagar,
Perundurai Road,
Erode 638 011
Both the petitioners represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.S.Varadhan ..Petitioners/Opposite parties
Vs
Mr.R.Senthilkumar,
S/o Rajendran
Door No.2/69,
Nathakadaiyur,
Kankeyam Taluk
Tirupur District 638 108 ..Respondent/complainant
Counsel for Petitioners/Opposite parties : M/s K.S.Ramakrishnan
Counsel for Respondent/complainant : M/s K.S.Jayaganeshan
This Respondent as complainant filed a petition praying for amending the complaint, before the District Forum in CMP.No.35/2015 in CC.No.48/2013, which was allowed. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite parties filed this Revision petition praying for setting aside the above order.
This Revision Petition came up before us for hearing finally on 13.3.2017, upon
perusing the records and also considering the arguments, this commission made the following order.
ORDER
By Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
This Revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite parties challenging the order dated 20.08.2015 made in CMP 35/2015 in CC.48/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode.
2. It is seen that the said CMP.NO 35/2015 was filed by the Respondent/complainant seeking an order to amend the complaint as detailed in the petition which reads as follows:-
“The Petitioner/complainant has stated in the affidavit that his counsel orally argued on behalf of the complainant and filed written argument. Similarly the Respondents also filed written argument and orally argued in the case and the matter was posted for further argument. It was pointed out that therefore in order to avoid technical object, the complainant filed the amendment petition to impugned cause of action in para 11 (II) as stated above.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Opposite parties submitted that the complainant is not legally entitled to file the petition seeking amendment of the complaint after filing written argument of both sides and the matter is posted for oral arguments. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for Appellant/Opposite parties relied on:
2014 (II) CPJ 180 (NC)
“Complainant did not move for amendment at the earliest – State Commission rightly held that application for amendment of complaint at the time of arguments was not entertainable”.
Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has ruled that State Commission has rightly held in the said case that the application for amendment of complaint at the time of argument was not entertainable.
4. The object of Consumer Protection Act is to provide legal redressal to the consumer without causing delay. In order to dispose the case even as per the Consumer Protection Act, version should be filed by the parties within the time limit. Similarly exparte order cannot be set aside by the Forum mechanically, though setting aside the Exparte order is liberal as per the code of Civil Procedure Code.. However seeking amendment after filing written arguments is not entertainable as per the Consumer Protection Act and further the National Commission has categorily held that the order of dismissal of the amendment petition by the District Consumer Forum at the stage of argument was correct.
5. In the instant case admittedly written arguments were filed by both parties and oral argument was partly made, hence the complainant is not entitled to file any petition seeking amendment of the complaint stating to avoid technical reasons raised by other side.
In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in
II (2014) CPJ 180 (NC)
Complainant is not entitled to move for amendment at the stage of arguments before the District Forum and the reason stated by the complainant could not be accepted legally, hence the Revision has to be allowed.
In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode made in CMP.No.35/2015 in CC.48/2013 on 20.8.2015 is set aside and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode is directed to dispose the matter according to law uninfluenced by the dismissal of the petition
within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 06th day of April 2017.
S.M.MURUGESSHAN DR.JUSTICE.S.TAMILVANAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
