Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/41/2024

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ONIDA MIRC ELECTRONICS LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH RAGHAVAN - Opp.Party(s)

N.PREM KUMAR-REV.PTNR

10 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT      

Revision Petition No.41 of 2024

 

[(Against the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed in C.C. No.160/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu]

 

                                                          Orders dated:10.09.2024

 

The Managing Director,

M/s. ONIDA MIRC Electonics Limited,

Onida House, G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri (E), Mumbai Suburban,

Maharashtra – 400 093.      … Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party.

 

- Versus –

1. Mr. Suresh Raghavan,

No.3, 1^st Cross Street,

Motor Star City,

Manikandan Nagar,

Kundrathur,

Kancheepuram District – 600 069.        … 1^st Respondent/Complainant.

 

2. The Managing Director,

M/s. Dawntech Electronics Private Limited,

M/s. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.,

Sy No.352/9, Iruggattukottai B Block,

Sri Perumbadur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District,

Tamil Nadu – 602 117.

 

3. The Managing Director,

M/s. Amazon India Private Limited,

2^nd Floor, Safina Towers,

Opp JP Techno Park,

No.3, Ali Asker Road,

Bangalore,

Karnataka – 560 052.    … Respondents 2 & 3 / Opposite Parties 2 & 3.

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioner /

1^st Opposite party                                     : M/s. N. Premkumar

 

1^st Respondent /Complainant                      : Served  & called absent.

 

Respondents 2 & 3 / Opposite Parties 2 & 3 :  Served  & called absent.

 

     This Revision Petition is listed today and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President  (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu in C.C. No.160 of 2023, whereby, the Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party was set exparte by the District Commission, for non appearance and non-filing of written version and consequently, adjourned the case for taking fresh notice to the opposite parties 2 & 3 by 06.03.2024.

2.     Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party.  Though notice was served on the Respondents 1 to 3, they have not chosen to appear before this Commission.  Hence, the Respondents 1 to 3 were served and called absent.

 

        3.     When the matter was taken up for hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party submitted that he was set exparte for non filing of written version well before the statutory period of 45 days as contemplated under the statute.   Thus, he prayed this Commission for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.02.2024 and permit him to file written version. 

 

4.     On a careful perusal of the order dt.23.02.2024 of the District Commission, the notice has been served on the Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party on 18.01.2024.    The 1^st opposite party was set exparte on 23.02.2024.  While computing the statutory period from the date of service of notice, it is seen that the 1^st opposite party was set exparte on the 35^th day i.e. even before the statutory period expires.  When the law mandates to grant 30 days along with an extended period of 15 days for filing written version, the District Commission without granting such time, set the 1^st opposite party as exparte is legally unsustainable.

 

        5. This Commission in the similar matter in R.P. No.10/2022 dt.22.02.2023 has elaborately held that “The District Commission cannot set the opposite party exparte before completion of the notice period; as such, it can pass the exparte order only if the version is not filed till the evening of 45^th day;”

 

        6. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the revision petitioner for their non-appearance, in the interest of justice, the Revision Petition could be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission, so that the Revision Petitioner will have a chance of contesting the case on merits.

 

         

        7. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed in C.C. No.160 of 2023 by the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu is set aside.  The Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party is directed to appear before the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu and file their Vakalat, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.160 of 2023 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.

 

                                                                        

 

                                                                               R.SUBBIAH

                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2024.