Date of Filing – 10.04.2017

Date of Hearing – 29.08.2017

            The instant Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party The Managing Director, Club 7 Holidays Ltd. to impeach the Order No.31 dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 172/2014.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum without giving any opportunity to the OP to file evidence on affidavit, fix 26.04.2017 for final hearing of the case.

          The Opposite Party herein being Complainant lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OP /revisionist in a consumer dispute for not providing services on account of his tour at Europe.  The complainant has asserted that the OP/revisionist has adopted unfair trade practice by not showing all the spots as promised in the itinerary etc.

          The OP/revisionist after entered appearance filed written version and contesting the case.

          By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has passed an order, which is recorded below –

          “complainant is present and filed hazira along with answer to interrogatory with copy.  OP files hajira through Ld. Lawyer.  Heard.  Submission of complainant in person.  OP is found absent on repeated calls.  None appears for the OP.  It is now 01:30P.M.   To 26.04.2017 for arguments.  OPs are requested to file BNA 2 days before the date fixed”.

          The factual matrix indicate that the complainant has filed reply against the questionnaire set forth by the OP.  The Ld. District Forum could accept the reply along with a true copy of the same with a liberty to the OP to collect the true copy from the record and could fix a date for filing evidence on affidavit by the OP but instead of the same, the Ld. District Forum proceeded to fix a date for hearing argument thereby without giving any opportunity to the OP to file their evidence on affidavit.

          Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it.  In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the revisionist has placed reliance to two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008 (1) CPR 1 (Mathura Mahto Mistry – Vs. – Dr. Bindeshwar Jha & Anr.) and 1994 (3) CPR 484 (I.S. Bhatia – Vs. – Anil Kumar Mehta & Ors.).

          The opposite party, who appears in person has contended that the instant dispute is pending for long which is against the object behind the legislation of the Act and as such it requires speedy disposal.

          I have found force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist.  Section 13(2) of the Act provides –

          “(2)  The District Forum shall, if the complaint admitted by it under Section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-Section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, -

1.  Refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
2.  where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute, -

1. on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
2. ex-parte on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum”.

          Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Mathura Mohan Mahato Mistry (supra) and the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, the Ld. District Forum has proceeded with the complaint wrongly without giving an opportunity to the opposite party to file the evidence through affidavit and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.  Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

          In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed on contest.   There will be no order as to costs.

          The Order No.31 dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum is hereby set aside.

          The case is remitted back on remand with the direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 30.10.2017 positively and on that date the OP must file evidence on affidavit and on filing the same, the Ld. District Forum will proceed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law keeping in view the spirit of the provision of Section 13(3A) of the Act without granting any adjournment to either of the parties.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia for information.