This case record is taken up for consideration in the matter of passing order in this MA case which has been initiated in view of the application filed by OP of C.C-31 /2023 for setting aside  ex parte order which is passed by this District Commission in C.C-31/23 on 12.4.2023.

This matter has been contested by the OP of this MA case who is the complainant of C.C-31/23.

The argument highlighted by Ld. Advocates of both sides has been heard in full.  Consideration submission.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant of this MA case that the applicant appeared in this case by getting knowledge on 13.3.2023 and on 2.6.2023 the OP appeared and wanted to file w/v with an application  for setting aside ex parte order.  It is alleged that there is no intentional fault on the part of the applicant of this MA case and the applicant of this MA case is intending to contest the C.C-31/23.

On the other hand it is argued by the OP of this MA case that there is no scope for allowing the prayer of the applicant as the w/v has been filed after 45 days.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in this MA case this district commission finds that the OP of C.C-31/23 who is the applicant of this MA case had given 45 days time for filing  w/v but the OP of the above noted C.C case failed to file the w/v on 12.4.23 which is 45 days after service of notice.  So this district commission has passed the order of ex parte hearing of this case.  According to the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court which is passed in the case of “New India Assurance company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.” there is no scope of accepting the w/v which is filed by OP after 45 days.  Moreover, the order of ex parte hearing has been passed on 12.4.23 but this MA case has been filed on 2.6.2023 which is after a long gap and there is no explanation for delayed filing of this MA case.  It is clear that this MA case is barred by limitation.  Now the question is whether this district commission has power of setting aside ex parte order or not?  In this regard it is settled principle of law that the State Commission or District Consumer Forum have no power to set aside their own ex parte orders.  Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe the decision in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak’s case. 

Thus it is crystal clear that this MA case is not maintainable and so it is dismissed on contest.  No order is passed as to cost.

Let the case record of this MA case no-56/2023 be tagged with the C.C-31/23.