M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  REVISION PETITION NO. 90 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 10.10.2022 passed in C.C.No.151/2022 by District Commission, Narmadapuram)

 

GEETA MARRIAGE PALACE & MISHRA

LIGHT & TENT HOUSE.                                                                                 …          PETITIONER

 

Versus

                 

CHANDRAMOHAN PATEL                                                                             …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA :      MEMBER

  

                                      O R D E R

 

28.11.2022

 

            Shri Dinesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

           

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

                         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.

                        The petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition against the order dated 10.10.2022 passed in C.C.No.151/2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narmadapuram (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that after service of notice of complaint, the petitioner/opposite party failed to appear before the District Commission on 10.10.2022, therefore an order to

-2-

proceed ex-parte was passed against it.  Challenging the said order the opposite party has preferred the present revision on the ground that the petitioner could not get an opportunity to put their case/defence before the District Commission. 

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10.10.2022 the proprietor of the petitioner had given vakalatnama to Shri Prakash Shukla, Advocate who assured that he will appear and file vakalatnama but he forgot to file the same and therefore, the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. He submits that for the fault of an Advocate, party be not made to suffer.  He further submits that if the impugned order is not set-aside, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

4.                The question is whether petitioner should be granted an opportunity to defend their case before the District Commission since it was proceeded ex-parte on 10.10.2022. 

5.                We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record as also the impugned order. On perusal of the record we find that the address of the petitioner in the complaint is “Geeta Marriage Palace Evam Mishra Light and Tent House, through Proprietor Akhilesh Mishra (Pappu), Near Ware House, ITI Road, Narmadapuram, Tehsil & District-Narmadapuram 461001” which is the same as mentioned in the Revision Petition by the

-3-

petitioner.  It means that the complainant has correctly mentioned the address of the opposite party in the complaint.  The notice was sent to the petitioner at the same address and it was duly received by the petitioner as the petitioner itself has filed the notice in original with the revision petition which shows that it was properly served on the petitioner.

6.                Section 65 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which deals with service of notice etc is as follows:

                   65. Service of notice, etc—(1)……….

(2)……….

                        (3)……….

(4) All notices required to be served on an opposite party or to complainant, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be sufficiently served, if addressed in the case of the opposite party, to the place where business or profession is carried on, and in case of the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document