Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/71/2024

THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHAVEER FINANCE INDIA LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

REVATHI W/O SENTHIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

V BALASUBRAMANI-REV.PTNR

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

    

Revision Petition No.71 of 2024

 

(Against the Order dated 30.08.2024 passed in C.C. No.01/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Cuddalore)

 

                                                          Orders dated:28.10.2024

 

1. The Chairman/ Managing Director,

Mahaveer Finance India Limited,

Nos.41-44, K.G. Plaza,

3^rd Floor, G.P. Road,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Mahaveer Finance India Limited,

First Floor, S.K. Complex,

No.10, Imperial Road,

Near TTK Motors,

(Bajaj Two Wheeler Showroom),

Cuddalore  607 001.   … Revision Petitioners / Opposite parties 1 & 2.

- Versus –

Mrs. Revathi,

W/o. Mr. Senthil Kumar,

Mariyamman Koil Street,

Kuriyamnagalam,

Cuddalore – 608 501.                         … Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioners /

Opposite parties 1 & 2                         : M/s. V. Balasubramani

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant  : M/s. N. Saravana Kumar

 

            This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for both parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President  (Open Court)

 

 

This Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the DCDRC, Cuddalore in C.C. No.01 of 2024, whereby, the Revision Petitioners / Opposite parties 1 & 2 were set exparte by the District Commission for non-appearance and non-filing of written version.

 

2.     Heard the counsels for Revision Petitioner and 1^st respondent.

 

3.     When the matter was taken up for hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Opposite parties 1 & 2 submitted that the revision petitioners were not able to get the case status from the previous Counsel who had handled the case.  Hence, they were not in a position to file version and proceed with the matter.  In the mean time, the Revision Petitioners / Opposite parties 1 & 2 were set exparte on 30.08.2024.  Thus, the Counsel for Revision Petitioners / Opposite parties 1 & 2 prayed this Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.08.2024 and permit him to file written version.

4.     In this circumstances, it is appropriate to refer the Section 47 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and it is re- produced hereunder,

“to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has

exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law,

        or

has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested

 or

has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”

From the above, it is crystal clear that only upon three contingencies this Commission has got power to revise the order of the District Commission.

5. Further, this Commission came to understand that eventhough the revision petitioner / 1^st opposite party received summon they did not appear and file their written version within the statutory period of 45 days.  Hence, the revision petitioner / 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission.

6.     Now the question to set aside the ex-parte order by the Consumer Commission is well settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of India - in Civil Appeal No.10941 – 10942/  2013 dated 04.03.2020 in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited –Vs- Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited - In the above case the Apex Court is categorically held that the District Commission has no power to extend the time for filing response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged u/s 13 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now replaced by section 38 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019). Thus, the Honorable Apex Court categorically held that the Consumer Fora and State Commission have not been empowered to extend the statutory time limit for filing written version by the opposite party and also have not been empowered to set aside the ex-parte order passed by them.  So the District Commission, Cuddalore did not commit error in exercising its jurisdiction and hence the same cannot be interfered by this Commission.  Hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable without cost.

In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed.   No costs.

                                                       

                                                                              R.SUBBIAH

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2024.