HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This revisional application is at the instance of the revision petitioner and is directed against the order No. 14 dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah in connection with the Consumer Case No. CC/213/2020 thereby passing an order which is reproduced as under :-

“Complainant files hazira. Today is fixed for ex-parte hearing. Complainant files evidence on affidavit.

At this stage Ld. Advocate appearing for O.P. No. 1 drew attention of this commission relating to its order dated 23/08/2022 and also submits that on that date O.P. No. 1 files one application for setting aside the order of ex-parte hearing.

Obviously prior to going into the deep root of this case relating to ex-parte hearing, we feel it necessary to dispose of the application dated 23/08/2022 of the O.P. No. 1.

Having heard both sides and going through the materials of record it may be noted that we do not find any substance for allowing the said petition as prior to the said application instant case has already posted for ex-parte hearing. C.P. Act does not permit us to allow any such prayer and as such the said petition dated 23/08/2022 of O.P. No. 1 is answered in negative.

Ld. Counsel appearing for O.P. No. 1 prays for some time for moving his intended application before higher forum. Said prayer is totally turned down as it bears no merit.

Fix 19.04.2023 for ex-parte argument and B.N.A., if any, by the complainant.”

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that Learned Commission below passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind, erroneously passed ex parte order against the revision petitioner, as the notice was not properly served upon the revisionist.  He has further submitted that it is settled law that the Commission should be liberal in deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte order during the pendency of the case. The Commission should make endeavour to decide the matter in dispute after giving proper opportunity of being heard to both the parties and no one should be condemned unheard and as such the present application is liable to be allowed. He has further submitted that the respondent will not be prejudiced in any way if the revisional application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. So, the revisional application should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside.

3. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner and on perusal of the record it appears to us that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / complainants filed a complaint case under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and prayed for refund of the advance money of Rs.68,64,452.36 regarding the purchase of the scheduled mentioned flat of the complainants by virtue of a agreement for sale dated 20.03.2015 along with interest @ 18% p.a. calculated at Rs.12,40,000/- till date and further to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- totalling 96,04,452.36 and further cost of the proceeding of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties.

4. The said complaint case was admitted and notices were duly issued upon the opposite parties. Record goes to show that notices were duly served upon the Revision petitioner and others and A/D cards were returned back after serving notices.

5. According to section 38(3)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the District Commissions are empowered to proceed with the case ex parte and if the opposite parties omits or fails to take any action to represent the case within the time given by the Commission. In this case, we find that the revision petitioner failed to file written version within the stipulated period of time, and, as such, ex parte date was fixed by order No. 11 dated 19.05.2022.

6. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a case reported in 2020(5) SCC 757 ( New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.) that the District Commission has no power to condone a delay beyond a discretionary period of 15 days in addition to the 30 days as envisaged in the provision.

7. This Commission is of the view that Learned Commission below has properly observed in its order that Consumer Protection Act does not permit District Commissions to allow the application for vacating ex parte order. Learned Commission below has rightly rejected the application dated 23.08.2022 filed by the revision petitioner for vacating ex parte hearing order. It also appears to us that the Learned Commission below has rightly and properly appreciated the facts on record and passed the order in accordance with law and thereby no error has been committed while exercising the jurisdiction and power vested in it while passing the impugned order. Therefore, intervention by this Commission under section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not required.

8. In the above discussion, the revision petition stands dismissed.

9. Revision petition is, thus, disposed of accordingly.