IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) 45 days – as per the settled law and the Provision of law under Section 38(3) (a), the Statutory period of 45 days for filing written version starts from the said date.
(2) Initial Period – 38(3) (a), the initial period for filing written version by opposite party shall be 30 days from the date of service of the copy of the complaint along with copies of the documents relief upon by the complainant.
(3) Extension – District Commission is empowered to extend another 15 days which is the discretionary period for filing written version, District Commission has no power to extend even a single day beyond the statutory period of 45 days for filing written version by the opposite parties.

ORDER

K. Ranga Rao, Member-Judicial—This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, under section 47 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with a prayer to set aside the Docket Order dated 19.12.2022 passed in CC No.152/2022 by the District Commission, Karimnagar and permit the Revision Petitioner/OP No.1 to file his written version and documents and to contest the Consumer Complaint and to pass orders in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2. The following few facts will help to know the background of filing the present Revision Petition by the petitioner/opposite party No.1.

3. The Respondent No.1/complainant filed Consumer Complaint vide C.C.No.152/2022 on the file of the District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, praying the District Commission “to direct the opposite parties (a) To pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards the insurance amount covered under the Pradhan Manthri Surakash Bima Yojana with interest @ 18% per annum; (b) To pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards Atal Pension Scheme and (c) to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and (d) to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of proceedings”.

4. As seen from the Docket Proceedings of the said Consumer Complaint, it was admitted and numbered as C.C.No.152/2022 on 07.11.2022 and notice was ordered in the same to the opposite parties and C.C. was posted to 19.12.2022 for the appearance of the opposite parties.

5. The Docket proceedings dated 19.12.2022 shows that “Sri G.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate filed vakalat for Opposite party No.2 & 3. Opposite Party No.1 called absent, set ex-parte. For counter of Opposite Party No.2 & 3, call on 20.01.2023”.

6. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, filed an Interlocutory Application vide IA No.11/2023 in CC.No.152/2022, dated 11.01.2023, under Order 9 Rule 7 of C.P.C., praying the District Commission, Karimnagar, to set aside the ex-parte order, in CC.152/2022 dated 19.12.2022, on the file of the said Commission.

7. The District Commission, Karimnagar, has passed the following order, dated 20.01.2023 in IA No.11/2023 in CC No.152/2022:- “IA. Heard. Dismissed. In view of this, Commission has no power to set aside the ex-parte order”.

8. Aggrieved by the Docket Order, dated 19.12.2022, the petitioner/opposite party No.1 preferred the present revision vide R.P.No.47/2023.

9. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 in his petition affidavit and grounds of Revision submitted that the CC No.152/2022 was posted to 19.12.2022 and notices were ordered to the opposite parties to appear before the District Commission, Karimnagar and when the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 after receiving the summons, made his appearance on the said date at 10:40 A.M., by that time the case was called and the petitioner/opposite party No.1 was set ex-parte. The non-appearance of them is either willful nor wanton, but due to hectic traffic, they could not reach the Commission on time.

10. They further submit that they filed IA 11/2023 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.12.2022 in CC No.152/2022, but the Commission has dismissed the said IA. The petitioner/opposite party No.1 has fair chance to defend the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Therefore prays this Commission to allow the petition and give an opportunity to them to contest the case as no damage will be caused to the Bank, otherwise, the petitioner/opposite party No.1 bank will be put to great hardship.

11. The Respondent No.1/complainant and the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3, did not choose to appear before this Commission.

12. The Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 filed counter stating that the revision petition filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. The Petitioner/Opposite party No.1 being a bank has a public duty and responsibility to honour the order of the court and comply the notice and ought to have appeared before this Commission on the date of appearan