Learned counsel for the parties are present.

On consent and request of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

In this revision petition, the revision petitioner has made prayer to quash notice dated 4.2.2019 under Annexure – 1 to the revision petition directing the revision petitioner to show cause as to why action u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall not be taken for non-compliance of ex parte interim order dated 20.7.2018 passed in CC No. 111 of 2018 by the learned District Forum, Puri.

The revision petitioner Financer is the OP whereas the OP in this revision petition is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

Heard.

It is not disputed that by ex parte interim order dated 20.7.2018 the revision petitioner was directed to release the repossessed vehicle to the complainant on receipt of Rs.2.00 lacs and the revision petitioner was directed  to file objection  to the interim application on 23.8.2018. It is also not disputed that the revision petitioner appeared before the learned District Forum and filed objection to on 23.8.2018. However, the learned District Forum kept the interim application pending without hearing the objection till application dated 31.1.2019 was filed by the complainant u/s 25 in response to which notice under Annexure - 1 was issued.

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in view of the mandate of Regulation - 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, since the revision petitioner had filed objection to the interim application ex parte interim order dated 20.7.2018 was no more available to be enforced after expiry of 45 days from the date of passing of the ex parte interim order. Therefore, the notice is without jurisdiction and the application for enforcement of the ex parte interim order by invoking provisions u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is liable to be quashed.

In reply, learned counsel for the OP/complainant submits that though the complainant tendered Rs.2.00 lacs to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner did not receive the amount and violate the ex parte interim order.

In this revision, this Commission has been called upon to examine the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum to entertain application to enforce of the ex parte interim order by invoking provision u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ex parte interim order was passed on 20.7.2018. Objection to the interim application was filed on 23.8.2018. Regulation - 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 reads as follows:-

“17. Ex-parte interim order – Any ex-parte interim order issued by the Consumer Forum shall stand vacated after 45 days if in the meanwhile the objections to the interim order are not heard and disposed of.”

Thus, it has been provided that the ex parte interim order stands automatically vacated in case the objection to the interim application is not heard and disposed of within a period of 45 days. Regulation - 17 provides for no exception.

In such circumstances, it is rightly contended that ex parte interim order dated 20.7.2018 stood automatically vacated on expiry of 45 days and was no more available to be enforced in the month of January, 2019 by issuance of Annexure – 1. The proceeding stated to have been initiated u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the notice dated 4.2.2019 under Annexure – 1 are therefore without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the notice dated 4.2.2019 under Annexure – 1 and the proceedings stated to been initiated u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the basis of which notice has been issued are set aside.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is interested to make out of court settlement of the dispute.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner has no objection to out of court settlement.

In such circumstances, the complainant may submit the proposal for amicable settlement with concrete terms and conditions for consideration by the revision petitioner within 15 days from today in which event the revision petitioner shall take a decision on the proposal within 15 days from the date of submission of the proposal.

Status quo with regard to the repossessed vehicle shall be maintained for a period of one month from today.