THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
APPEAL NO.2472/2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd.,
Registered office No.222,
9th Floor, Maker Chamber-IV
Nariman point, Mumbai-400021 …Appellant/s
2. Reliance Jio Centre,
CTS No.10632/A2/2, 3rd Floor,
Mujawar Arcade, P.B.Road,
Belagavi-5900 10
3. Reliance Corporate IT Partk Ltd,
No.690B, Plot No.36,
Ground and First Floor,
Near Channamma Circle,
Ashok Nagar, Nippani-591 237
4. Reliance Jio Appellant Authority,
RCITPL, RMZ Icon Building No.51,
Palace Cross Road,
Bengaluru-560 052
The appellants No.1 to 4 are
Represented by its Authorized
Signatory
(By Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda, Advocate)
V/s
Sri.Manjunath M.Kumbar,
Age: 32 years,
Residing at Kumbar Galli,
Near Allamaprabhu temple, … Respondent/s
Chichani post, Chikodi Taluk,
Belagavi District - 591287
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 in complaint No.413/2022 have preferred this appeal against the Interim Order passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission, Belagavi which rejected an application filed by these appellants to permit them to file version.
2. The complainant filed complaint against these Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service with respect to the Network problems provided by these appellants/Opposite Parties and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 Crores. After admission of the complaint, the District Consumer Commission issued a notice for appearance of these appellants on 25-8-2022 on that day these appellants represented by an advocate and filed vakalath and sought time for filing version, for which the District Consumer Commission granted time for filing version to 15-9-2022, even on that day also he was not able to file the version and sought for time, for which, the District Consumer Commission accordingly adjourned for filing of the version on 3.10.2022. Since these appellants’ company instructed the authorized signatory to approach an advocate on record and instructed to provide necessary information for preparation of the version, in that process a prescribed time to file version was elapsed. Hence, he could not file version on 3.10.2022 and the District Consumer Commission on that day has taken version has not filed and adjourned on 2.11.2022 on that day these appellants filed an application to permit them to file along with the version. The said application was dismissed though the advocate for the complainant submits to allow the application as they have no any objections and also requested the District Consumer Commission to impose the cost on allowing the application, in spite of that the District Consumer Commission dismissed the application without any reasons, non filing of the version well within time is not intentional but for a bonafide reasons. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission dated 25-11-2022 and permit them to file version, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from appellants
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission on the application, we noticed that, after admission of the complaint, the District Consumer Commission issued a notice against these appellants for appearance and to file version, but these appellants on the first appearance had only represented through their counsel by filing vakalath and not chosen to file any version. Anyhow the District Consumer Commission has granted time to file version, but even of the next date of hearing also the Opposite Parties have not chosen to file any version. We noticed that, the District Consumer Commission has provided multiple opportunities to file version in spite of that the appellants have prayed time without any reasons. Subsequently these appellants made an application on 2-11-2022 to permit them to file version, the said application was rejected as no grounds made out by the appellants and also the District Consumer Commission noticed that, the Opposite Parties have not filed version within 45 days as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act hence, dismissed the application.
5. The learned advocate for appellants vehemently argued that the appellants company has engaged an advocate and officers of the appellants have been located in different part of the country, the authorized signatory of the appellants company has sought for instructions and information from all the appellants to take proper and definite unilateral stands in the matter under this process, they could not file the version well within time and stipulated time 45 days was elapsed, due to the said reasons, they could not file version well within the time, hence prays to set aside the order of District Consumer Commission. The reasons assigned in the memorandum of appeal are not satisfactory, in fact the appellants has to file version at the time of first hearing itself, when the notice was served on them, whereas no reasons was assigned for seeking time to file version, mere ascertaining informations and instructions from the all over the country to take proper defence are not satisfactory reasons to allow the application after stipulated time of 45 days. We do not find any valid reasons to allow the appeal. The appellants have failed to file version well within time as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act. There is negligence on the part of the appellants in not filing the version within stipulated time as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Judicial Member
