Hearing of this application arises out of complaint case no. 176/2017 wherein the present petitioner the original opposite party in( C.C No. 176/17) has exhaustively narrated his grievance with regard to final order dated 20.06.2022 passed in the Complaint Case No. 176/17 on the grounds that this commission has erred in law and as well as in fact while allowing the above complaint case .Fact remains that so many grounds have been taken in the instant application.

However a perusal of the Complaint Case No. 176 of 20127 on the face of it reveals that on the date of hearing argument i.e. on 3.6.2022 the original O.P (the revisionist herein) was not present as it reveals from order no. 30 dated 3.6.2022 nor his argument was heard but a perusal of the judgment of C.C No. 176 of 2017 apparently discloses that the case has been appears to have erroneously decided “on contest”.

In view of the fact referred to above this commission cannot but consider the principle of “audi altarem partem” which is the first and foremost principles of NATURAL JUSTICE and in this case it is apparent on the face of the final order/judgment of C.C. No. 176 of 2017 was heard in absence of the present petitioner who was the Opposite Party in the complaint case. So it is apparent on the face of the record that the final order “on contest” in the C.C no 176 of 2017 has been scribed erroneously.

Accordingly, the revision application no. 06/2022 is allowed.

Revisionist is hereby directed to serve summon upon the complainant of the original date on the date fix.

Fix 13.9.2022 for S/R and appearance.

Let the instant application be made part of the original case.     

                                          Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Today is fixed for passing order in the instant RA case which has been filed by the Revisionist (OP in the original CC case) u/s 40 of the consumer Protection Act 2019 for reviewing the order dtd.20.06.2022 passed in the respective CC case.

The Review petition has been filed within one month of the passing of the order in the CC case. The petitioner of the RA case has filed a written version today which is perused and kept with the records.

The Revisionist was directed by this Commission in its order No.3 dtd.10.08.2022 to serve summon upon the Complainant of the original CC case. The date 13.09.2022 was fixed for S/R and appearance. OP of the Review case responded to the notice but finally did not take any step on 15.12. 22, the date fixed for filing written objection. Accordingly the OP was directed to show cause as to why the review petition should not be heard ex parte.

However, as no reply to the show cause notice was received from the Opposite

Party’s end, the Commission decided to hear the case ex parte.

Finally, the case was heard ex parte on 21.03.2023.

The argument highlighted by the Ld. Advocate of the Petitioner was heard in full.

The main point of contention and argument of the Revisionist is that the way in

which the original complaint petition was allowed allegedly without considering

the material facts, without physical inspection of the disputed microchip and

without allowing the OP (of the CC case) to take part in the argument was

Materials on records are perused.The original Complaint case centered around the

issue related to purchase of a microchip by the Complainant, detection of alleged

defect in it, repeated persuasion to get it replaced by the OP, corresponding refusal

by the OP either to make the replacement or to make the refund.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision and to decide the fate of the instant RA case this District Commission on perusal of the materials of this case finds that while adjudicating the case no physical inspection of the microchip was done for ensuring the Complainant’s claim. The Complainant did not approach to the Commission for this purpose either.

Moreover, the Complainant refrained from making the manufacturer of the microchip, a party in this case.

Besides, while examining the history of the proceedings of the CC case in chronological order, so far as the order sheets are concerned, it is found that the Complainant did not appear for eleven times in course of proceedings of this case, while the OP made himself absent for five times. But surprisingly on the date fixed for argument the Complainant only was heard and the OP was deprived of the opportunity of being heard in spite of submission of BNA in advance.

In view of the above, the Commission at this particular juncture is of the considered opinion that for the sake of fair adjudication, the entire issue deserves reconsideration.

This is apparent on perusal of all the aspects of the Complaint case and the judgment delivered in this regard that the case was disposed and the Complaint case was allowed in absence of corroborating documents. Moreover, the complaint petition was allowed without physical verification of the disputed microchip and the judgment was delivered without allowing the OP to take part in the argument. Thus error is conspicuous so far as the judgment is concerned.   

Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the R.A. case no.06/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte.

In the result the CC case stands dismissed.

Let the case record be tagged with the CC case No.176/17

However there is no order as to costs.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

Drafted and word file created by me.