STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/21/RP/64/2024 TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD. & OTHERS PRESENT ADDRESS - AT-PLOT NO-1, BIDADI INSUSTRIAL AREAR RAMNAGAR TALUK BANGALOR ,ODISHA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus BHABANIKINKAR INRASTRUCTUER PVT. LTD. & OTHERS PRESENT ADDRESS - AT- PLOT NO-416, DURGAPUR, BARABATI DHARMASALA ,ODISHA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. DILIP KUMAR MOHAPATRA. , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SUDHIRALAXMI PATTNAIK , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

M.K. DASH (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

M/S R.K.PATTANAIK DATED: 11/04/2025

ORDER

R.P.64/2024 I.A.972/2024 The Revision petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner challenging the order dt.11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Commission,Cuttack vide Annexure-2 to the revision petition.

Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner is the OP No.1 in the Consumer Complaint. The OP No.1 has filed the written version in Consumer Complaint within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from learned District Commission.

Counsel of Complainant submitted that the Op No.1 has not filed the written version within 30 days, the time granted by the learned District Commission and after 30 days learned District Commission on 28.06.2024 set the OP No.1 ex-parte as the complainant has not prayed for time before learned District Commission to file the written version as such the written version filed by Revision Petitioner (OP No.1 in Consumer Complaint) may not be accepted although it is filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt notice from learned District Commission.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the DFR.

We find the learned District Commission has not accepted the written version so filed by OP No.1. The relevant portion of the order dt.11.07.2024 of the learned District Commission,Cuttack is as follows:-

“Complainant is present. OP No.2 & 3 took no steps. OP No.1 files hazira. Heard on the petition filed by OP No.1 on dated 09.07.2024. On perusal of record it is foud that several opportunities have already been given to OP No.1 for filing of written version, more than forty five days have also been passed from the date of acknowledgement of notice for filing of written version. As such, we are constrained to accept the written version beyond the specific time limit. Hence, the written version is not accepted. Put up on the date fixed i.e. 23.07.2024 for hearing. However OP No.1 is at liberty to participate in the proceedings of this case.”

Sd/-Member Sd/- President.

On perusal of the DFR we find learned District Commission on

20.06.2024 admitted the Consumer Complaint and directed to issue notice to the Opp.Parties. Vide order dt.28.06.2024 the OP No.1 was set exparte by learned District Commission. Learned District Commission vide its order dt.28.06.2024 has held that as per the postal tracking report notice was served on the OP No.1 on 27.05.2024. Learned District Commission admitted the Consumer Complaint on 20.06.2024 but vide its order dt.28.06.2024 held that notice was served OP No.1 on 27.05.2024 which is wrong. On 28.06.2024 the matter was fixed to 23.07.2024. On the strength of advance petition filed by OP No.1, the matter was taken up on 09.07.2024, the revision petitioner (OP No.1 in Consumer Complaint) filed the written version before learned District Commission and the matter was posted to 11.07.2024 for consideration of the petition so filed by OP No.1. On 11.07.2024 Learned District Commission not accepted the written version which was filed by the OP No.1 on 09.07.2024 in Consumer Complaint stating that the written version has been filed beyond 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice from the District Commission. On perusal of the postal tracking report we find OP No.1 has received the copy of the notice in C.C. No.185/2024 on 29.05.2024 and has filed written statement on 09.07.2024 which is within the period of 45 days from t