Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member
ACCANOOR ASSOCIATES - Appellant
Versus
AKANKSHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 2049, 2050 of 2014 from Order dated 29.1.2013, 30.10.2013 in Complaint Case No. CC/10/151 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai
Decided on : 16-07-2014
Mr. S.S. Panwar, Ms. Nivedita Panwar and Mr. Sunil Dutt, Advocates, for the Appellant
The court emphasized the importance of timely action and diligence in defending consumer complaints, highlighting the legislative intent for expeditious resolution of consumer disputes.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Sections 13, 18 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 13 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deal with the procedure to be followed by the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission for disposal of original complaints. The court highlighted the time limit for filing a written statement in response to a consumer complaint and the power of the forum to proceed ex parte against the opposite party for failure to represent their case within the given time. The court emphasized the legislative intent for expeditious resolution of consumer disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an ex parte order and condone the delay in filing a written statement in response to a consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the petitioner was negligent in defending the consumer complaint and failed to take timely action to represent their case.
Issues: Setting aside an ex parte order, condonation of delay in filing a written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct was negligent, and there was no justification for setting aside the ex parte order or condoning the delay in filing the written statement.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member -By this order, we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions arising out of the orders dated 29.1.2013 and 30.10.2013 in consumer complaint No. 10/151 filed by the respondent in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission ).
2. The impugned orders dated 29.1.2013 and 30.10.2013 are reproduced as under:
29.1.2013
"Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate for the complainant. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 and their Counsel absent. Notice after admission to both the opponents 1 and 2 sent on 4.10.2012 and they were duly served as per the postal acknowledgements on record but remained absent. Hence, complaint to proceed in their absence. In response to the public notice issued, published in daily Navshakti issue dated 19th June, 2012 and The Free Press Journal issue dated 19th June, 2012 (copies of which are on record), no opponent No. 3 appeared. Since matter is ex parte and no evidence is filed. Complainant to file affidavit in evidence as per provisions of Sections 13(2)(b)(ii) and 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Matter stands adjourned to 10.4.2013."
30.10.2013
"Advocate Ajay Pawar is present for the complainant and he files letter of authority issued by Mr. Patwardhan-Advocate on record for the complainant. Advocate Poonam Shirke is present for the opponent. She files letter of authority issued by Mr. S.B. Rao, Advocate for the opponent. None is present for 2 and 3.
Complainant files affidavit of evidence along with documents on record. Copy is served on the opponent. Opponent No. 1 moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the written version of the opponent on record. Advocate Shirke is not in position to state under which provision the said application is moved. Order to proceed ex parte against all the opponent has already been passed. The Commission cannot set aside or review its own orders. The complainant has closed his evidence by filing pursis. Since the evidence part in the complaint is over, matter now stands adjourned for final hearing. In the meantime, both the parties shall file brief notes of arguments in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 two days before next date before Registrar (Legal) of the Commission. Registrar (Legal) shall accept the same. Adjourned to 18.3.2014."
3. Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been compelled to file this revision petition for setting aside ex parte order dated 29.1.2013 because in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitender Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541, the State Commission has no power to review its own order. It is contended that the absence of the petitioner on hearing dated 29.1.2013 was unintentional. The petitioner was under the impression that his Counsel would appear on the date of hearing particularly when the preliminary affidavit supposed to be filed in response to the complaint was ready on 24.1.2013 and that affidavit could not be filed on 29.1.2013 because the Counsel could not reach the State Commission in time and when he reached there, case had already been proceeded ex parte.
4. We do not find merit in this contention. The petitioner in the revision petition has taken a plea that the preliminary affidavit supposed to be filed in response to the complaint was prepared on 24.1.2013. From this, there is no dispute left that the petitioner OP No. 1 was served with the notice of the complaint. The explanation for non appearance of the Counsel in time on the date of hearing is not acceptable for the reason that neither application for setting aside of the impugned ex parte order nor any revision petition against the said order was filed. As per the record, on 10.4.2013 Mr. S.B. Rao, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner OP No. 1 before the State Commission. No steps for getting the impugned o
