This revision is directed against the order no. 9 dated 3/1/2019 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in C case no. 97/S/2018. The revisional case in nut shell is that one U Prassad filed a consumer complaint against the revisionist bank that is Corporation bank and the Nodal Officer of Canara bank. For compensation due to deficiency of service. On the basis of the notice corporation Bank had appeared before the Ld. Forum to contest the case and on 3/1/2019 was fixed for filing the WV as last chance on the part of the corporation bank. On that date, the petition of complainant for amending the consumer complaint was also fixed for hearing. On 3/1/2019 , both the complainant and corporation Bank had appeared before the Ld. Forum and on that date, the corporation bank without filing the WV has filed a petition, challenging the consumer complaint on maintainability point and contended that the Ld. Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the consumer dispute. Ld. Forum on that date, did not hear the maintainability point petition and passed the order to hear the case ex-parte against corporation Bank as they could not file the W.V within 45 days.

Being aggrieved with the said order, the revisionist corporation bank approached before this Commission challenging the validity of the order delivered by the Ld. DCDRF dated 3/1/2019 and contended that the impugned order under revision is full of error and not vested with law. The revision was admitted on merit and the consumer complainant was served notice of revision who had appeared before the Commission to contest the revision as OP no. 1 and 2 of this case and Ld. Advocate S. Mrituka has conducted the case of the OP no. 1 and 2.

The Nodal Officer of Canara bank did not contest the revision. Accordingly the revision heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decision with reasons,

Having heard the Ld. Advocates who move their cases respectively and after hearing, this Commission found that since the date of receiving the notice on the part of the revisionist, the date 3/1/2019 was the last date as per statutory limit to file the W.V as 45 days ends on that date, So Ld. Forum found that they had no statutory power to extend the time limit to file W.V and for that reason, Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order to hear the case ex-parte against the revisionist.

On the other hand, on that very date, a petition of amendment of complaint dated 18/12/2018 was pending for hearing and disposal and on that date Ld. Forum has not disposed of the said petition which was very much urgent for the purpose of this case as because after the amendment of consumer complaint, if were allowed there may be some probable chances of change of some narrative of the consumer case and for that reason, the OP to that position certainly should have accrued right to file additional WV if they even if actually had filed the WV on that date. So without disposal of the amendment petition of the consumer complaint the law does not permit the Ld. Forum to place the case ex-parte or debar the revisionist to file the WV on the next date. It is further found that on that very date the OP/revisionist has challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum to try the case as the OP apprised Ld. Forum that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction. So, without disposal of the said maintainability petition, Ld. Forum cannot prevent the OP of that case from contesting the consumer dispute. Ld. Advocate of the OP, at the time of argument of revision mentioned that according to the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of CP Act, 1986. The consumer Forum only can grant further period of 15 days for filing the version or reply and not beyond 45 days. So at first the OP has the right to file WV within 30 days but if the OP fails to do the same, there is permissible limit to extend the time of filing WV is maximum 15 days and not more and for that reason, Ld. Forum has rightly placed the case for ex-parte hearing as because on that date, no WV was furnished on the part of the revisionist. In support of his argument, he has referred judicial decision reported in 1(2016)CPJ1/SC where Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically upheld the decision of J.J. Marchent case and came to an opinion that consumer forum cannot extend the date of filing WV beyond the limit of 45 days.

 After going through the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the OP, the Commission finds that in that particular case, the OP did not file the WV within 45 days since the date of receiving the notice. But in this particular case, the OP on 3/1/2019 by filing written version challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum and for that reason, Ld. Forum ought to have disposed of the said petition before asking the OP to file the WV. Rather the petition for amendment of complaint was also still remain pending on that date. So, the OP has got no opportunity to file WV on that very date.

Therefore, in apparent we find that at the time of delivering the order dated 3/1/2019 there was a gross mistake on the part of the Ld. Forum and for that reason, the order of Ld. Forum is liable to be set aside.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the instant revisional application is hereby allowed on contest against the OP no. 1 and 2 and ex-parte against OP no. 3. The order of Ld. Forum dated 3/1/2019 delivered by ld. DCDRF, Siliguri  in reference to C case no. 97/S/2018 is hereby set aside. Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri is requested to fix the date for hearing the maintainability petition dated 3/1/2019 and the amendment petition filed by the consumer Complaint dated 18/12/2018 and thereafter proceed with the case after disposal of the said pending two petitions in accordance with law.

Let the order be communicated to the concern Forum and also to be supplied to parties free of cost.