SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant Revision Petition has been preferred against the order impugned being no – 8 dated 19/12/2022 read with order being no – 4 dated 23/06/2022 passed by the ld DCDRC, South 24^th Parganas (commonly known as Baruipur Consumer Commission) in connection with CC case no – 69/2022 wherein the concerned Trial Commission has been pleased to hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to recall/set aside the ex-parte order and the ld Trial Commission is not at all inclined to allow the instant applications filed by the ops no – 1 and 2. Accordingly the ld. Trial Commission has also been pleased to dismiss both the applications dated 23/06/2022 filed by the ops 1 and 2 and thereby the ld. Trial Commission has declined to accept the written version filed by the op no 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order the instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the revisionist/opposite party no – 2.
2. The case record has been taken up for hearing.
3. We have heard the ld. advocate appearing for the revisionist at length and in full.
4. We have meticulously perused the materials along with citations available on record.
5. Be it mentioned here that there is clear delay of 9 days  in filing the instant revision petition.  Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionist  and upon careful perusal of the materials available on the record  delay is condoned and  the RP is admitted.
6. Ld DCDRC  has been pleased  to pass  the order impugned being no – 4 dated 23/06/2022 which is reproduced as follows:-

“Complainant files Hazira Op nos 1 & 2 took no steps and found absent on repeated calls till 12.30 PM. Today was fixed for filing W/V by the ops. But as the Ops did not file W/V, the instant case be proceeded ex-parte as against both the ops 1 & 2. Fix 16.08.2022 for evidence on affidavit by the complainant. Later dated 23.06.2022 after passing order no – 4 dated 23.06.2022 ld Lawyer for the op nos 1 & 2 appears and filed vakalatnama along with two separate applications – 1 for adjournment and the other for recalling the ex-parte order. Copies not served. Op to serve the copy of the petition at once. To date (16.08.2022 for hearing and order).”

Ld DCDRC has also been pleased to pass the order impugned being no – 8 dated 19/12/2022 which is reproduced as follows:-

“The case record is put up today for order.

Op no-2 files hazira.

These are two applications dated 23.06.2022 filed by the op nos. 1 and 2 with a prayer for vacating the ex-parte order passed on 23.06.2022 by order no 4. It was contended by the op nos. 1 and 2 in their applications dated 23.06.2022 that ex-parte order passed by this Commission be vacated/recalled and to permit the ops nos. 1 and 2 to contest the case by filing W.V.

It appears from the record that order no 4 dated 23.06.2022 on the date of filing WV by the ops, they did not file any W.V on the date fixed and as a result thereof the instant complaint case was declared to be heard ex-parte against both the op nos. 1 and 2. As this Commission has no jurisdiction to recall/set aside the ex-parte order, we are not at all inclined to allow the instant applications filed by the op nos. 1 and 2 and accordingly we have no other alternative but to dismiss both the applications dated 23.06.2022 filed by the op nos. 1 and 2. So the W.V filed by the op no-2 is not accepted. Fix 10.02.2023 for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant.”

7.  Upon careful perusal of the aforesaid order dated 23.06.2022 and 19.12.2022, it is clear to us that the opposite parties both were found absent on repeated calls of the ld Trial Commission till 12.30 PM. The ld Trial Commission has provided a chance to file their written version till 12.30 PM. But they were not willing to file the same as such the ld Trial Commission has been pleased to pass an order of ex-parte against the opposite parties no-1 and 2. It is the settled principle of law that the written version should be filed within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the ld Trial Commission. So, in pursuant to the provision of law it is the duty of the op/ops to file their written version within stipulated period of time.
8. However, it is also found in the later part of order that two separate applications have been filed at the behest of the ops 1 and 2 wherefrom it appears to us that the ops have prayed for adjournment and also for recalling of the ex-parte order.
9. Now it should be decided that whether the aforesaid orders impugned have been correctly passed or not. It appears from the order impugned dated 19/12/2022, it is crystal clear to us that both the applications have been taken up for hearing. Having heard the ld advocate and on perusal of the record the ld Trial Commission has been pleased to hold that the ld Trial Commission has no jurisdiction to recall/vacate/set aside the order of ex-parte as such the ld Trial Commission has also been pleased to dismiss both the applications dated 23.06.2022 filed by the ops no – 1 and 2. Regarding this decision taken by the ld Trial Commission, the settled principle of law is very clear that the ld Commission Concerned has no power and authority to recall/vacate/set aside of its own order or orders and in pursuant to the aforesaid principle of law we can safely say that there is no such wrong or error or mistake in passing the order impugned being no – 8 dated 19/12/2022 read with order being no – 4 dated 23/06/2022 passed by the ld Trial Commission Concerned.   
10. Regarding filing of the written version we can safely rely upon the decision ie NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS Hilly Multipurpose Cold Storage PVT LTD, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 472, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the written statement/version should be filed within 30 days + 15 days = 45 days positively in default the actual object of the Consumer Protection Act is to be frustrated.
11. Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the settled principles of law and also regard being had to the citation mentioned above we firmly hold that no wrong or error or mistake has been committed by the ld Trial Commission in passing of the aforesaid orders impugned and accordingly we are constrained to dismiss the instant Revision Petition without any order as to costs and resultantly we affirm the aforesaid orders impugned passed by the concerned Trial Commission.
12. Thus, the instant Revision Petition stands dispose of.
13. Note accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Trial Commission for compliance and for taking necessary action.