1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) 1934 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 08.05.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Revision Petition No. 07 of 2023 in which orders dated 04.05.2022, 14.06.2022 and 30.11.2022 of  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Dharmshala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 169/2022 was challenged, inter alia praying for:-

(i)      setting aside order dated 04.05.2022, 14.06.2022 and 30.11.2022 passed by District Commission and allow the Petitioner to contest the matters;

(ii)     restore the right of the Petitioner to file reply and lead evidence before District Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant (s) was/were Respondent(s) in the said RP/07/2023 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent(s) was Complainant(s) before the District Commission in the CC No. 169/2022.  

3.       As other Revision Petitions involve common question of law, concerning the same petitioner, are connected with similar orders of the District Commission and State Commission, these are taken up together.  Brief details of these cases are given the Annexure.  However, Revision Petition No. 1934/2023 is taken as lead case. 

4.       Heard counsel for both sides.  Challenge is to the order dated 08.05.2023 of the State Commission vide which Revision Petition of the Petitioner herein against the impugned order dated 04.05.2022, 14.06.2022 and 30.11.2022 of the District Commission was dismissed.  As per order dated 04.05.2022, the Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. Their application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.05.2022 was rejected vide order dated 30.11.2022 and their right to file written version was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2022, being beyond the stipulated period of 45 days.

5.       It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for absence on 04.05.2022 was that the counsel appearing before the District Commission wrongly noted the date as 04.06.2022 instead of 04.05.2022, and that it was only 04.06.2022, the counsel for petitioner found out that the matter was listed on 04.05.2022 and that due to his non-appearance, the matter has been proceeded ex-parte and has filed an Affidavit in this regard.   Hence, he has prayed for setting aside order of District Commission for proceeding against the ex-parte order so that he is allowed to participate in the proceedings before the District Commission.  According to him, case is still pending before the District Forum and next date of hearing is on 01.11.2023.  Hence, Counsel for Petitioner requests for early decision in the case.

6.       It is admitted by the Petitioner that the notice was received on 31.03.2022  and 45 days period ended on 18.05.2022 and the written version was filed on 14.06.2022 only i.e. beyond 45 days, as calculated from the date of notice.  However, he contends that as he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2022, the period from 04.05.2022 to 14.06.2022 should be excluded for calculating the eligible period of 45 days. This is strongly objected to by the Counsel for Respondent stating that this cannot be allowed in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757.  Counsel for petitioner has also filed certain case laws upon which they wish to rely.

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and District Commission.  In accordance with the orders dated 04.03.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd.(supra), the Consumer Commissions have no power to extend the period for filing of the written version beyond 45 days i.e. 30 days as provided under the Act  and 15 days’ extension permissible under the Act.  In this case, it is not in dispute that the notice was received on 31.03.2022 and the 45 days’ period ended on 18.05.2022 and the written version was filed on 14.06.2022 only i.e. beyond 45 days as calculated from the date of notice.  Hence, the District Commission was right in rejecting the written version filed by the Petitioner herein (OP before the District Commission) vide its order dated 14.06.2022, which has been rightly upheld by the State Commission.  We do not agree with the contentions of the Petitioner that as he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2022, the period from 04.05.2022 to 14.06.2022 should be excluded from the admissible period of 45 days. The Petitioner herein/OP before the District Commission ought to have filed his written version within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice i.e. 31.03.2022.

8.       The next question that arises is whether in the absence of written version of the OP before the District Commission, the OP has a right to participate in proceedings or not.  Once the OP is preceded ex parte, they lose their right to participate in the proceedings before the Commission. In this case, vide District Commission’s order dated 04.05.2022, the Petitioner herein was proceeded ex- parte. Their application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.05.2022 of the District Forum was rejected vide order dated 30.11.2022 and these orders have been upheld by the State Commission.  It was contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner that reasons for absence on 04.05.2022 was that Counsel appearing for Petitioner before the District Commission wrongly noted the date as 04.06.2022 instead of 04.05.2022 and it was only on 04.06.2022 that the Counsel for the Petitioner found that the matter was listed on 04.05.2022 and due to his non-appearance, the matter has been proceeded ex parte. 

9.       Although, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the District Commission in proceeding ex-parte against the Petitioner herein, which has been upheld subsequently by the State Commission, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, there is no harm if the Petitioner herein/OP before the District Commission is allowed to participate in the proceedings before the District Commission strictly on the basis of available records, without any reference to the written version, which has been rightly rejected/not taken on record in view of the reasons stated in the preceding paras. Such right to participate in proceedings will allow him to file written arguments/synopsis based on the available records only (other than his written version) and/or orally argue the case before the District Commission based on available records only.  This will in no way adversely affect the right of the complainant before the District Commission.  However, it is made clear that the OP before the District Forum cannot file any new document or application or place on record any new fact either directly or indirectly to bring on record any part of the written version in the guise of any other application or document.  Hence, they are given a limited right to participate in the proceedings before the District Commission to file written arguments/synopsis before the District Commission and/or orally argue the case(s) strictly based on the available records other than the written version, which stand rejected.  Accordingly, we modify the orders dated 04.05.2022 and 30.11.2022 of the District Commission and order dated 08.05.2023 of the State Commission to this extent. 

10.     All the Revision Petitions viz RP 1934 of 2023 and RPs 1951 to 1959 of 2023 are disposed of accordingly with above observations/modifications to the orders of the District Commission and State Commission.   

11.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.

Annexure –I

Details of cases