THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBUARY, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
Revision Petition No. 142/2018
1. M/S. Onida Service Centre,
Adnois Electronics Pvt. Ltd,
No.488, 5th A-Main, 11th Cross,
WOC, 2nd stage, Mahalaxmipuram,
Near Modi Hospital,
Bengaluru – 560 086
...Petitioner/s
2. M/s. Onida Televisions,
Onida House, GI MIDC,
Mahakali cover road,
Anderi east, Mumbai-400 093
Both 1st and 2nd Petitioners is
Represented by Sri.A.Ragavendra,
Junior Officer-Operations,
Authorization holder
Working with 2nd petitioner
(By Sri.M.S.Baswaraj, Advocate)
V/s
1. Sri.Mohammed Firoz
S/o late Syed Ameer,
Aged 39 years, ... Respondent/s
Ganapathi Street,
Madikeri, Kodugu District
2. The Proprietor
M/s. Mangal Deep,
No.150, KT Street, ... Respondent/s
Mysuru-570 001
(Respondent No.1-By Sri.Kumar, Advocate)
(Respondent No.2- Dispensed)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This Revision Petition is filed by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 against the order dated 15.06.2018 passed by District Consumer Commission, Mysore in C.C.No.352/2017, wherein the District Commission dismissed the application filed by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to permit them to file the version by condoning the delay for the reason that while submitting the IA before the District Commission by oversight at page 2 of the IA affidavit the authorized signatory of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and their counsels fail to put their respective signatures. Hence the District Commission had rejected the IA on technical grounds. Rejection of the said IA has caused hardship and untold legal injury to the revision petitioners and they have very good defense to defend their case before the District Commission. Hence, prays to set-aside the impugned order by the District Commission in IA No.2 of CC-352/2017 dated 15-6-2018 and allowing them to file version, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard advocate for revision petitioners/appellants.
3. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that on 5-4-2018 the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel with IA No.1 filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC and the said IA No.1 allowed and exparte order against the Opposite Party No.3 set aside. Further Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 filed IA No.2 under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file version. This application along with affidavit of one Raghavendra, Junior Officer Operation of Opposite Parties stating that officer of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 situated in Bengaluru and Mumbai due to communication gap between them and legal department, they could not file version on the last date of hearing. There was realistic delay in getting necessary information and documents from the Opposite Parties to proceed in this case. There is delay in filing version which is not intentional and for bonafide reasons. The District Commission has forfeited the right of filing of the version and the order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper. We consider that the District Commission could have allowed the application by imposing costs instead of rejecting the same. Hence we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission on IA No.2 is hereby set aside and permission is granted to file version on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Revision Petition is hereby allowed. However, Revision Petitioners/appellants are directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant before the District Commission.
The Revision petitioners/Appellants are permitted to file version and the District Commission is directed to take the version on file and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Member Judicial Member
