STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH REVISION PETITION NO. SC/9/RP/3/2025 (Against the Order dated 17th June 2025 in Appeal DC/166/CC/70/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mainpuri)

ENGINEER MANOJ KUMAR S/o. RAJ BAHADUR PERMANENT ADDRESS - PURUSHOTTAM COLLECTION WALI GALI STATION ROAD , MAINPURI,UTTAR PRADESH.

R C L COLD STORAGE PVT LTD PERMANENT ADDRESS - KARHAL ROAD MAINPURI , MAINPURI,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus HARI RAM S/o. janak singh PERMANENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE TILIANI POST TALIBPUR , MAINPURI,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

R C L COLD STORAGE PVT LTD FOR THE RESPONDENT: HARI RAM S/o. janak singh DATED: 11/02/2025

ORDER

Oral State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow.

SC/9/RP/3/2025 RCL Cold Storate Pvt. Ltd. & anr. …Revisionists.

Versus Hari Ram …Opposite Parties

JUDGMENT

11.2.2025 Per Sri Vikas Saxena, Member: This revision petition has been filed praying to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 27.11.2024.

The instant revision is filed on the ground that the ld. District Commission has committed an error of law in not appreciating the fact that one the written statement along with the evidence has been taken on record and marked with page number, thereafter, not to consider the same on behalf of the revisionist. The ld. District Commission has also committed error in adopting a procedure not known in law insomuch as even after closing the opportunity to file written statement, the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of complainant, to file evidence and to participate in the further proceedings, without filing a written statement and to make final arguments in the complaint case, cannot be court enhanced, and thus the order dated 29.12.2023 initiating proceedings ex-parte against the revisionist is illegal.

The ld. District Commission has not returned the written statement filed by the appellant/OP nor has passed any order in respect of the written statement taken on record by a specific order of the court. The order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the ld. District Commission in complaint case no.70 of 2023 is unreasonable and arbitrary insomuch as by means of the application being paper no.22, revisionist has prayed for recall the order dated 29.12.2023 whereby opportunity to file written statement of the revisionist has been closed.

Therefore, the revisionist has prayed to set aside the order dated 27.11.2024.

We have heard ld. Counsel for the revisionist Sri Faisal Ahmad Khan.

None for the opposite party.

We have perused order dated 27.11.2024.

The revisionist has claimed that the ld. District Consumer Commission has committed an error for not taking into consideration the written statement filed by the revisionist. According to the revisionist one the written statement alongwith evident has been taken on record and paper number is marked thereafter not considering the same is arbitrary and against the settled principles of law.

The above mentioned contention raised by the revisionist has no force because as per law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the District Fora or the State Commission has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the written statement after mandatory period of 45 days of receiving the copies of the complaint etc.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.

Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, reported in AIR 2020 SC 1267 that the Consumer Commissions has no jurisdiction to admit a written statement after 45 days. Again this point was reiterated in M/s Daddy Builders vs. Manisha Bhargawa, (2021) 3 SCC 669.

The revisionist has also alleged that the impugned order is incorrect as the ld. District Commission vide order dated 27.11.2024 proceeded ex-parte and debarred the revisionist from participating in the further proceedings. This Commission finds that the revisionist/opposite party of