Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6657
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOMA BHATTACHARJEE, PRESIDING MEMBER, SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
XOTIK FRUJUS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S. PASUPATI PARTNERSHIP FIRM – Respondent
Revision Petition No. SC/19/RP/45/2025 | Appeal DC/312/CC/63/2023
For the Petitioners:MATRI PRASAD DAS (Advocate)
For the Respondents:LD. ADVOCATE
The court affirmed the right of an absent party to participate in ex parte proceedings, emphasizing adherence to natural justice, allowing limited participation while restricting evidence submission.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 47 - Revision petition filed questioning the propriety of orders dismissing a miscellaneous application related to participation in proceedings of a consumer complaint case - Court allows participation in day-to-day hearings and limits evidence due to ex parte nature. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Ex parte hearings - Rights of the opposite party in ex parte proceedings established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directing that they should have the opportunity to cross-examine and submit arguments. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Revision Petition was filed seeking to intervene in ongoing proceedings due to the dismissal of an earlier application based on the failure to file written statements.
Findings of Court:
The orders were set aside as they were found to suffer from irregularities, granting the Revisionists limited participation in proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Revisionists were entitled to participate in the ex parte proceedings and file limited evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that principles of natural justice were violated by not allowing the Revisionists to cross-examine and participate meaningfully.
Result: The Revision Petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders are set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court justification for allowing participation. (Para 9) |
| 2. ruling on ex parte proceedings. (Para 10) |
ORDER
Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member Ld. Counsel for the Revisionists is present.
Perused the Revision Petition.
Let the Revision Petition be admitted and registered.
The instant Revision Petition has been filed by the Revisionists u/s 47 of Consumer Protection Act , 2019 praying for allowing themto intervene in day to day proceeding in the Consumer Complaint Case being No.CC 63 of 2023 pending before Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly alongwith granting liberty to cross examine the Respondents/Complainants, to file evidence in Chief by the Revisionists and to file Brief Notes of Arguments by the Revisionists.
The instant Revision Petition has been filed questioning the propriety of the order nos.7 & 19 both dated 25.03.2025 by which order Ld. DCDRC dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revisionists/OPs No.1 to 5 of the original Complaint Case being No.CC 63 of 2023.
We have carefully gone through the orders dates 25.03.2025 and the M.A. 36 of 2023 filed by Revisionists/OPs No.1 to 5. The Ld. DCDRC has recorded that since the OPs of the Consumer Complaint Case have not filed the written version within statutory period, the case has been fixed exparte against the OPs vide Order No.5 dated 18.07.2023 and by filing M.A. Case No.36 of 2024 the Applicant of M.A. Case i.e. OP No.5 of the Consumer Complaint Case has intended to make review of the Order no.5 dated 18.07.2023. The application has been filed almost 10 months after passing the order dated 18.07.2023. Hence, the petition MA/36/2024 has been dismissed on contest since Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act , 2019 allows to file Review Application within the statutory period of 30 days.
We have carefully gone through the MA/36/2024. Firstly, the Miscellaneous Application has been filed by OPs No.1 to 5/present Revisionists, not by OP No.5 only, Secondly, in the prayer portion of the Miscellaneous Application the OPs No.1 to 5 have not prayed for reviewing the Order dated 18.07.2023, rather they have prayed for granting liberty to participate in the day to day proceeding alongwith to give permission to file questionnaire, evidence, BNA and to participate in final hearing.
In the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1988 (4) SCC 619 Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in case of exparte hearing, the OPs should be allowed his right of cross-examination and arguments and thus they can file the questionnaire in limited scope against the evidence in Chief by the Complainants in limited scope, they can participate in day to day hearing and also they can participate in final haring by filing their BNAs. But they cannot be allowed to lead their own evidence.
In another decision passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court “in (1955 AIR 425) Sangram Sinch Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah Bhurey ) wherein the defendants were allowed to argue at the argument stage even after passing exparte order against the defendants.”
We are also relying upon the Judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in MANU/SC/1407/2023 ARN Infrastructure India Limited Vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh wherein the Apex Court grant reasonable opportunity to both sides to address arguments on merits. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is as follows”
“...
9. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that a proxy counsel appeared for the counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party herein before the NCDRC, seeking an adjournment of the case. Although the opposite party had not filed its version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, nevertheless, had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC. In order to do so a short adjournment was sought by the Appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC. However, the NCDRC refused to grant the adjournment for the reasons that no written version had been filed by the Appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC
