STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/68 (Arisen out of Interim order dated 14/05/2024 in Complaint No.597/2023 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban)

Easy Trip Planners Ltd., Having its address at:

Building No.223, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi -110 092. ....... Petitioner(s)

Versus Dr.Darshan Chandak, Having its address at:

Flat No.301, Krishna Building, N.S. Road No.6, JVPD Scheme, ………Respondent(s)

Vile Parle West, Mumbai – 400 049.

BEFORE Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member Poonam V. Maharshi – Member For the Petitioner(s) : Advocate Rohit Dalmia For the Respondent(s) : None.

ORDER

(30/07/2024)

Per Ms.Poonam V. Maharshi – Member:

(1) Revision Petitioner/original Opponent – Easy Trip Planners Ltd., has preferred present Revision Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 14/05/2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban in Complaint No.597 of 2023 whereby No Written Version order was passed against the Petitioner.

(2) Short facts leading to file the present Revision Petition are that the respondent/complainant Dr.Darshan Chandak has preferred the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner/opponent. The said complaint was admitted by the District Commission and notice was issued to the Petitioner/original opponent. They received the copy of the said complaint and as their registered office is at Delhi they had appointed a local Counsel for the said case of Mumbai, Maharashtra for representing them before the District Commission and they had already posted the written statement in the said matter to the previous Counsel engaged by the petitioner but the Counsel did fraud with them and neither appeared before the District Commission nor filed written statement as posted to her by the petitioner. However, due to negligence of the Local Counsel and non appearance on the date of hearing i.e. on 04/03/2024 the reply of the petitioner could not be filed. They had prepared the reply within stipulated time and sent the same for filing before the District Commission well within time to the local Counsel. However, for the reasons unknown, the reply could not be filed within time and later on the petitioner engaged new Counsel. On 14/05/2024 the petitioner’s Counsel appeared before the District Commission to file reply but the District Commission closed the right to file reply by order dated 14/05/2024. Against this order dated 14/05/2024 passed by the District Commission the petitioner/opponent has come up in revision.

(3) Heard advocate for petitioner. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner should not be penalised for the fault of the Counsel. He has relied upon on the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafique and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr., wherein it is held that the parties should not be made to suffer for fault of the Counsel when they have made due efforts.

(4) In view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 14/05/2024 it reveals that the petitioner/opponent after receipt of notice dated 12/02/2024 did not file written statement within a period of thirty days provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further clear that present petitioner also did not file written statement after extended period of fifteen days and the impugned order dated 14/05/2024 came to be passed. Though the petitioner has filed citations wherein it is held that parties should not suffer for the fault of Counsel but we are of the view that the discretion is neither to the District Commission nor to the State Commission to grant any extension in view of the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.10941 - 10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, decided on 04^th March, 2020. Admittedly, th