This revisional petition is directed against the order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Malda dated 21.09.2021 in CC No 37 of 2021. The fact of the case in brief is that one Gopal Agarwala & Others registered a Consumer Complaint Bearing No CC 37 of 2020 at Malda Ld. D.C.D.R.F., against the Tata Motors & Others. The said Consumer Complaint was admitted and notice was sent to the address of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, on the basis of Postal Report Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Malda hold that notice of the parties to the case was property served and the parties were asked to submit the W.V within the prescribed limit. On 21.09.2021 the Ld. Forum hold that O.P No. 1 in spite of receiving notice did not appear to contest the case and for that reason it was decided that the instant Consumer Complaint case was to be heard Ex-parte against the O.P No. 1 Tata Motors Company Ltd. Being aggrieved with this order this revision follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum ordered to proceed the Ex-parte against the revisionist Tata Motors without taking into consideration that the revisionist O.P No. 1 did not have any office at the address indicated in the cause title of the Consumer Complaint and the order of Ld. Forum was misconceived, erroneous and contrary in law and for that reason by filing this revision the revisionist Tata Motors sought for set aside of the order of Ld. Forum dated 21.09.2021. The revision was admitted and notice was sent to the respondents. The respondents G. Agarwala & B. Agarwala have contested the revision after receiving the notice and their case has been conducted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Chowdhury. The respondent No. 3&4 in spite of receiving the notice did not come to contest the revision. The Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Ganguly conducted the hearing of revision on the part of the revisionist.

Decision with reasons

During the course of hearing and after going through the copy of orders in the proceedings of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Malda in CC No 37 of 2020 it appears to the Commission that the case is still pending for final disposal and next date of the case fixes there in the month of May, 2022. During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate of the revisionist Mr. J. Ganguly submits that Tata Motors is a reputed concern and if they had received the notice certainly Tata Motors could contest the case by filing the W.V. He, mentions that actually the office of Tata Motors is located not in the given address mentioned in the cause title of the Consumer Complaint but at Bombay House 24 Homimodi Street, Mumbai 400001 and the Managing Director of the company sits there and their West Bengal Regional Office is located at Beni Tower, Calcutta 700107. He, further submits that the other Opposite Parties in that case did not file the W. V within the prescribed limit but in spite of that there was no order to hear Ex-parte against the said Opposite Parties. He, further submits that Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., and Hon’ble Apex Court have extended the time limit of filing W.V considering the grave situation arising due to COVID pandemic. He, further submits that to upheld the principle of natural justice every party of the proceedings should get an opportunity to contest the said proceeding and no Final Order should be passed if any party remained unheard. Ld. Advocate of the respondent Nos. 1&2 Mr. J. Choudhary submits that when the Ld. Forum has passed the order for hearing the case Ex-parte against the Tata Motors the only option lies upon the revisionist Tata Motors to move before the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C and State Commission has got no power in this score to set aside the order for Hearing ex-parte. He, further submits that the Ld. Forum has given ample opportunity to file the W.V while the revisionist could not avail the said opportunity in due time and for that reason Ld. Forum was compelled to pass an order to hear the case Ex-parte against the revisionist. So, at this stage this revisional application should not be allowed on merit.

After, taking into consideration the proposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission thinks that every proceeding arises within the umbrella of Consumer Protection Act should have to follow the principle of natural justice. Here the revisionist approached before this Commission to give the revisionist space to contest the proceedings before the Redressal Agency and as the matter still remains sub-judice the revisionist should get an opportunity to contest the said proceedings. Considering all aspects, this revision should be allowed on merit to uphold the doctrine of natural justice.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the instant revisional application is allowed on contest against the O.P Nos. 1&2 and Ex-parte against the O.P Nos. 3&4 without imposing any cost.

The order under revision dated 21.09.2021 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda in CC No 37 of 2020 stand vacated. The revisionist Tata Motors as O.P No. 1 of that case is given an opportunity to file the W.V positively within 30 days from this day, failing which the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda will be at liberty to hear the case Ex-parte against the revisionist Tata Motors (O.P. No. 1) and if the revisionist O.P No. 1 files the W.V within the time framed by this Commission then the instant Consumer dispute should be disposed of observing all the legal formalities as soon as practicable.

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Malda for doing the necessary action.