Order No. 1 Contd..              Date : 01/11/2022

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no. 2/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is also present.

The application U/S 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 read with Order No.9 Rule-13 CPC is  taken up for hearing. Copy served.

Perused the material on record.

Heard both the sides.

Ld. Advocate for opposite party no. 2 / petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 could not file w/v before the Commission in time as the notarized copy of the same has not been received by the Counsel in time. So, Ld. Commission had been pleased to grant adjournment. However, Ld. Commission had observed that Vakalatnama is not as per Kolkata Court’s format and passed  an order to proceed ex-parte against the opposite party no. 2.

In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the entire version of the opposite party no. 2 is misconceived. No such order has been passed by the Ld. Commission in CC/132/2022.

On perusal of the record, I find that on 24/08/2022 the case had been fixed for filing evidence by the complainant as opposite party no. 2 has not filed w/v within the statutory period. The opportunity to file w/v within the statutory period by the opposite party no. 2 was lapsed and the case was fixed ex-parte against him.

It is apparent on the face of the record that there is no error in passing the order no. 3 dated 24/08/2022 by the Commission. Moreover, Section 38(9) of the C.P. Act,2019 is not applicable here in the context of the above referred order.

Therefore, the Misc. Application being misconceived is dismissed in limini with cost of Rs. 1,000/- only.

Thus the Misc. Application is disposed of.