Order No. 5                         Date: 23.08.2022

Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.6 /petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The application U/S 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the opposite party no. 6 is taken up for hearing.

Heard both sides.

Ld. Advocate for opposite party no.6 submits that in spite of his best effort he could not appear in CC/01/2022 and as such, vide order no.5 dated 28.02.2022 passed in CC/01/2022 a direction has been passed to hear the case ex-parte against the opposite party no.6.

According to opposite party no.6, the date of appearance in the Complaint Case was fixed on 28.02.2022.  The opposite party no.6 was keen to contest the case.  In spite of his best effort he could not appoint any Advocate on his behalf to take steps on the date fixed i.e. on 28.02.2022 for the reason of insufficient time and this Commission had been pleased to pass an order of ex-parte hearing as against opposite party no.6 vide order no.5 dated 28.02.2022.  Opposite party no.6 prays for setting aside order no.5 dated 28.02.2022 allowing him to proceed and contest the Complaint Case.

On perusal of the record of CC/01/2022 we find that the notice has been served upon opposite party no.6 on 10.02.2022.

It appears from the record that the date of appearance given in the notice was 28.02.2022.  On that date i.e. on 28.02.2022 neither the opposite party no.6 nor his representative or any authorized pleader appeared on his behalf.  No steps taken by opposite party no.6 praying for any adjournment to file w/v in the Complaint Case.

So this Commission had been pleased to proceed the case ex-parte as against opposite party no.6.  It is apparent on the face of the record that there is no error in passing the order no.5 dated 28.02.2022 as against opposite party no.6.  In view of Section 40 of the C.P. Act this Commission has jurisdiction to review any order passed by it, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record either of its own motion or an application made by any of the parties within 30 days of such order.  As we find there is no error in passing order no.5 dated 28.02.2022 by the Commission, the instant review application U/S 40 of the C.P. Act is liable to be rejected.

Therefore, the application U/S 40 of the C.P. Act, filed by the opposite party no.6 is dismissed but without any cost.