STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/21/12 Arisen out of Interim Order dated 13/01/2020 passed in Complaint No.219 of

2019 of District Commission Thane)

1. MEL Training & Assessment Ltd., Through its Managing Director, 710 A, 3^rd Floor, Anant Chambers, Opp.Modern School, Junglee Maharaj Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411 005.

2. Aptech Ltd., Through its Managing Director, A-65, MIDC Marol, ....... Petitioner(s)

Andheri East, Mumbai 400 093.

Versus Nikisha Ambhore, Runwal Garden City, Phase 2, ………Respondent(s)

Aster 102, Balkum, Thane (West), Mumbai - 400 608.

BEFORE Justice S.P. Tavade - President A.Z. Khwaja – Judicial Member For the Petitioner(s) : Advocate Ms.Gargi Warunjikar For the Respondent(s) : Advocate Ms.Poonam Makhijani

ORDER

(06/10/2023)

Per Hon’ble Mr.A.Z. Khawaja – Judicial Member:

(1) Petitioner – MEL Training & Assessment Ltd., has preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the order dated 13/01/2020 passed by the District Consumer Disptues Redressal Commission, Thane in Complaint No.219 of 2019 by which the learned District Consumer Commission passed the order to proceed without written statement as well as ex-parte against the present petitioner, earlier named as Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd.

(2) Short facts leading to file the Revision Petition are that the Respondent/Complainant – Nikisha Ambhore was Consumer and opponent/petitioner was educational institution providing various types of education to the students. Respondent/Complainant filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against the present petitioner MEL Training & Assessment Ltd., earlier named as Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd.

(3) After fling of the complaint due notice was issued to the opponent/petitioner to file written version within the stipulated period. It appears that even after receipt of notice the petitioner/opponent herein failed to file written version and so the learned District Consumer Commission, Thane, passed the impugned order dated 13/01/2020, which is under challenge.

(4) We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for MEL Training & Assessment Ltd., and she has vehemently submitted that though the petitioner had received the notice of the consumer complaint on 03/07/2019 the petitioner could not file the written version within the stipulated period of 45 days as the petitioner had assigned the matter to one earlier Advocate Bindu Parikh for drafting reply. But, the reply/written version was not drafted by her despite constant follow-up and subsequently the lawyer of the petitioner left the assignment. The petitioner was constrained to engage another lawyer after correspondence and so there was delay in filing the written version. It is submitted by the learned advocate that after receipt of the notice the petitioner had also appeared before the District Commission on 09/10/2019. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner sought time to file written version on 09/10/2019 but the application for grant of time was strongly opposed by the complainant and therefore, the learned District Consumer Commission passed the order rejecting the application. The petitioner has also drawn our attention to the copy of the application dated 09/10/2019 as well as one application filed by the Complainant on the same day for proceeding without written version as well as to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. It appears that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of time dated 09/10/2019 came to be rejected but application filed by the Complainant for proceeding without written version as well as the ex-parte came to be allowed and finally the impugned order came to be passed on 13/01/2020. In order to support her contentions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon certain documents, namely copy of the e-mail exchanged between the petitioner and their lawyer – Bindu Parikh.

(5) We have also heard learned advocate for the respon