Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/25

M/S BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT.PREETI PATEL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.PRANAY GUPTA

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            REVISION PETITION NO. 25 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 09.08.2021 passed in C.C.No.184/2021 by the District Commission, Chhatarpur)  

 

M/S BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,

REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI-PUNE

ROAD, AKURDI, PUNE-411 035 (MAHARASHTRA)

THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH OFFICE-NO.202, SECOND FLOOR,

KHATWANI COMPLEX, 75-76 GOL BAZAR,

JABALPUR-482 002 (M.P.)                                                                                …          PETITIONER.

 

                         VERSUS

SMT. PREETI PATEL,

W/O SHRI RAGHVENDRA PATEL,

R/O AMANGANJ MOHALLA,

POLICE STATION-CITY KOTWALI,

CHHATARPUR (M.P.)                                                                                       …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

                    HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY           :   MEMBER

                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

                 Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                 None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 16.03.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                                       

                       The opposite /petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 09.08.2021 passed in C.C.No.184/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.

 

-2-

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice of complaint, the petitioner/opposite party failed to appear before the District Commission on 09.08.2021, therefore an order to proceed ex-parte was passed against it.  Challenging the said order the opposite party has preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioner could not get an opportunity to put its case/defense before the District Commission. 

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Commission did not consider this fact that during covid-19 pandemic most of the offices were closed and the employees were working from home even then the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners. Thus, due to covid-19 pandemic the petitioner was not properly served and therefore, the petitioner had failed to appear before the District Commission on 09.08.2021 and the District Commission wrongly proceeded ex-parte against it.  He further submits that if the impugned order is not set-aside, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

4.                None appeared for the respondent.

5.                The question arises that whether petitioner should be granted an opportunity to defend their case before the District Commission since they were proceeded ex-parte on 09.08.2021. 

6.                We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the record we find that the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party on 09.08.2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No.21 OF 2022 in

-3-

MA No.665 OF 2021 in Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 OF 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2022 has directed that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.  Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force that the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against it during Covid-19 Pandemic period when the offices remained closed and employees were working from home.

7.                In revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  From the record it is established that the District Commission proceeded ex-

parte against the petitioner on 09.08.2021 i.e. in between the period relaxed by Apex Court 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

8.                In view of the above discussion and under facts and circumstances of the case we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set-aside.

9.              In the result, the impugned order proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/opposite party is set-aside.

10.               Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 24.04.2023

 

-4-

11.               The complainant shall provide copy of complaint along with affidavit and documents to the opposite party on the date of appearance. The opposite party /petitioner shall file reply to the complaint positively within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of complaint and documents. Parties are free to file additional evidence, if any, with the permission of the District Commission in support of their respective contentions.

12.               It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission while deciding the matter.

13.               The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

14.               With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petition stands allowed.  No order as to costs.

 

                     (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                Presiding Member                    Member