Karnataka

StateCommission

RP/7/2019

Rajendra Ganapati Hegde - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance Jio Centre - Opp.Party(s)

I.P(Rajendra Ganapati Hegde)

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

03/11/2022

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in complaint No. 97/2017 on the file of Uttara Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karwar preferred this revision petition against order passed for condoning the delay in filing version beyond 45 days.  It is submitted that complainant has filed this complaint against OP alleging deficiency in service.  After admission the District Commission issued a notice to the OP/ respondent and same was served on OP NO.1 on 09.11.2017.  The OP No.2 placed exparte.  Subsequently, OP No.1 filed vakalath along with application for setting aside exparte order which was allowed on 12.01.2018.  Later on 23.02.2018 OP No.1 filed written statement along with application seeking permission to file version, for which the complainant raised objections and prayed for rejection of the version as the stipulated time of 45 days was lapsed.  After hearing on the application the District Commission taken version on record by imposing costs of Rs.800/-.  Infact, the District Commission has no power to set aside the order passed by the District Commission itself.  Inspite of that District Commission permitted OP to file version by condoning delay.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

Heard from revision petitioner.  On going through the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that OP filed version on 23.02.2018.  After hearing on delay District Commission basing on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Diary No(s).2365/2017 dated 10.02.2017 in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwar’s Pvt. Ltd. and anr. has provided opportunity to OP to file version by imposing costs.  The reason narrated for allowing the OP/respondent to file version is proper.  The District Commission relied on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  We found by allowing OP to file version and contest the case, complainant do not suffer any hardship or inconvenience.  We found there is no irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, revision petition holds no water.  Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

 

Member                          Judicial Member