09.03.2022:

Common Order in Rivision Petition Nos.88, 89, 90 & 91/2016 Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

01. These Revision Petitions filed U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986 by OPs aggrieved by the order dtd.01.09.2016 passed by District Forum, Bengaluru Urban in CC.No.438, 461, 462 & 464/2016 respectively.

02. The Commission heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners. We have gone through the revision papers.

03. Now, we have to examine, whether impugned orders passed by District Forum calls for any interference in exercising the powers vested U/s.17(1)(b) of CPA 1986.

04. These Revision Petitions are filed on the ground that, they received notice on 16.05.2016 and engaged an advocate. Accordingly on 29.06.2016 vakalath was filed by their advocate and the matter was posted for filing of version of OP.3 & 5 by 25.07.2016. On 25.07.2016, since, their advocate could not attend the matter, as he was held up in traffic and by the time reached the forum, matter was already adjourned to 25.08.2016 recording version as not filed and posted the matter for Complainant evidence. It is to be noted herein that, this is what the procedure contemplated under the Act and forum below has followed.

05. The Revision Petitioners further submitted that on 25.08.2016, since the stage was to file version, they were under the impression that forum posted the case for filing version. In this regard, we have to opine that, such impression of the Revision Petitioners or their advocate, has no relevance, since on 25.08.2016 itself version of OP.3 & 5 is taken as not filed by District Forum. The Revision Petitioners submitted that on 25.08.2016, when they appeared before the forum, the forum refused to consider the same orally and the same was not taken on record due to the reason the version has already been taken as not filed on 25.07.2016 itself. In this regard, we are of the view that, District Forum justified to say so, keeping in mind the object of consumer laws and the dictum of higher courts in catena of decisions. Further to be noted herein that, the advocate representing Revision Petitioners has to follow the procedure as contemplated under the CPA and rules therein, not required to follow the oral advice of forum. Revision Petitioners submitted that on 01.09.2016 they filed the necessary application U/s.151 of CPC, seeking permission to file version as well as affidavit evidence, for which, the Complainant did not file objections yet. The District Forum ordered as IA filed on behalf of OP.3 & 5 seeking to permission to file version is rejected, so also the version and posted the matter for affidavit evidence of Complainant adjourning the matter to 04.10.2016. In this regard, the Commission is of the opinion that, whether or not objections are filed by the Complainant or OP as the case may be, forum has to decide the case in accordance with the law, which in our view, rightly decided although objections was not filed by the Complainant to the said IA. It is not necessary that the IA filed has to be decide only after filing objections, since such application came to be filed after lapse of 45 days and the forum below keeping in mind the object of the consumer laws and the law laid down by the higher courts in catena of decisions ordered to decide on the IAs.

06. The complaint raised against Ops with an allegation that, even after receipt of advance amount from the Complainants failed to provide services as agreed and even after lapse of more than 7 years as on the date of complaint are trying to escape from their obligations which of course are the matter of enquiry before District Forum, cannot be examined by us.

07. If we examined the revision papers could see that consumers raised complaints against these Revision Petitioners during 2016 and now we are in the beginning of 2022 and the complaints raised by the consumers seeking direction to Revision Petitioners to refund the advance amount along with interest and claiming compensation are st