JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President—This appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 16/08/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with M.A. Case No. 19/2024 arising out of complaint case No. CC/87/2023 whereby the Learned District Commission dismissed the M.A. Application filed by the appellants.

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants at length and in full. Perused the record, memo. of appeal, impugned order and other relevant documents.

3. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record and the memo. of appeal it appears to me that the only issue in this appeal relates to foreclosure of rights of the opposite parties/appellants to file written version. The case of the parties, therefore, need not be discussed.

4. The Learned Advocate appearing for

the appellants has urged that the Learned Commission below has erred in coming to a conclusion without allowing the appellants to submit.

5. He has further urged that the Learned Commission has erred in not setting aside the order dated 08/09/2023 which directed ex parte proceeding of the matter.

6. He has further urged that the impugned order is bad in law and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the issue of filing written version law is very categorical.

7. On perusal of the record it appears to me that notices were duly served upon the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on 25/07/2023 and 26/07/2023 respectively. It also appears to me that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared on 08/08/2023 by filing Vakalatnama through the Advocate Mr. Koushik Das and prayed for time for filing written version. On 08/08/2023 the prayer of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 i.e. the appellants was considered and allowed and on 08/09/2023 was fixed for filing written version by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. But on 08/09/2023 the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Commission and prayed for time for filing written version. As the statutory period for filing written version was over, the opportunity for filing written version by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 was closed vide order dated 08/09/2023. Till this date the opposite parties did not file any written version before the Learned District Commission. On 08/09/2023 the Learned District Commission was pleased to fix the matter on 09/11/2023 for ex parte hearing. In the issue of filing written version law is very categorical.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajib Hitendra Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another in (2011) 9 SCC 541 held that the “State Commission or District Consumer Forum have no power to set aside their own ex parte orders”. Paras 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the said judgment are relevant which are reproduced as under:—

“35. We have carefully scrutinized the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also carefully analyzed the submissions and the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties.

36. On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and theState Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.

37. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.

38. In our considered opinion, the decision in Jyotsana’s case laid down the correct