1.       Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.       Challenge is to the order dated 21.08.2024 of the State Commission UT Chandigarh vide which appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed in limine and appellant was given liberty to join proceedings before the District Commission and submit its written submissions / oral arguments.  The order dated 21.08.2024 is reproduced below :

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Opposite Party No. 1 under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 21.06.2024 whereby it alongwith other opposite parties was proceeded against ex parte. Prayer made in the appeal is to quash/set aside the order dated 21.6.2024 thereby restoring the right of the appellant to file written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint.

Record of the complaint file is attached. It is observed from the order dated 21.6.2024 that the appellant/opposite party did not appear before the Learned Lower Commission despite due service, which was confirmed through track consignment report, as such, it was proceeded against ex parte on 21.6.2024.

It is admitted in the appeal that the notice was delivered to the appellant on 5.6.2024 but pleaded that no opportunity was granted to file written version within the stipulated period of 30 days and extendable for further 15 days as provided under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, this situation did not arise as the appellant did not enter appearance on the date fixed i.e. 21.6.2024 or thereafter before the Learned Lower Commission.

Even otherwise, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Ors, (2011) 9 SCC 541, this Commission does not have the power to set aside an ex-parte order.

Accordingly we find nó merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. However, appellant is at liberty to join the proceedings before the Ld. Lower Commission and submit its written submissions/oral arguments.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties.  File be consigned to record.

3.       It was as per order dated 15.05.2024 that the complaint was admitted and notice to OP was issued for 21.06.2024 with direction to file written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice extendable for 15 days ( total 45 days).

4.       Order dated 15.05.2024 is reproduced below :

Office report seen.  Heard.  Be registered. Complaint is admitted for hearing.  Notice to the OP(s) be issued for 21.6.2024 with the direction to OP(s) to file written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice extendable for 15 days ( total 45 days).  Incase copies of complaint or Annexure have not been received the same be received from the office within 7 days from receipt of notice.

5.       Order dated 21.06.2024 is also reproduced below:

OPs have not turned up despite of service which has also been confirmed through track consignment report. Hence, OPs are proceeded ex parte.

To come up on 26.07.2024 for filing further evidence, if any on behalf of complainants and arguments.

6.       The main issue to be decided in the present case is whether the Petitioner herein who was OP before the District Commission has a right to file his written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice ( extendable for another 15 days – total 45 days) notwithstanding his absence on 21.06.2024.  The notice was received by the Petitioner herein on 05.06.2024, hence 30 days period ends on 05.07.2024 and 45 days will end on 22.07.2024.  However, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 states that period of 30 days for the purpose of filing the written statement is to be counted when the notice alongwith the complaint is received by the OP ( Petitioner herein).  Order dated 15.05.2024 of the District Commission itself states that in case copies of complaint or annexure have not been received the same can be received from the office within 7 days from receipt of notice.  This itself shows that District Commission has possibly not sent the notice alongwith complete copy of the complaint / paper book.  Still, OP was having time upto 22.07.2024 to file their written version ( 15 days extendable with the permission of the District Commission).  Hence, in our view, their absence on 21.06.2024 which is within 30 days period from the date of receipt of notice does not take away their right to file their written version as per statutorily available timeline. Hence, District Commission went wrong in not accepting their written version if it was within a period of 30 days from the date of service of notice alongwith complete copy of complaint or at the most, within maximum period of 45 days from the date of service of notice with complete copy of the complaint, if the District Commission decides to condone the delay of 15 days. 

7.       In view of the above, we find that order dated 21.08.2024 of the State Commission cannot be sustained.  Hence, the same is hereby set aside.  As the proceedings before the District Commission are pending, District Commission is directed to reconsider the request of the Petitioner herein ( OP before the District Commission) for taking their written version on record if it is filed within 30 days from the date of this order (excluding the date of this order). Order dated 21.06.2024 of District Commission with respect to proceeding against OPs ex parte is set aside subject to the condition that written version is filed within 30 days from the date of this order ( excluding the date of this order).    Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly.

8.         Order may be given Dasti in addition.