BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 29^th day of October 2025 Revision Petition No.03/2025 in C.C. 09/2025 Senthil Kumar (50), S/o. Elango Authorised Signatory M/s. S.K. Engineering Works,, No.8/6, Pumping Station Road, Royapuram, Chennai – 13. …Petitioner / Opposite Party Vs.

Aruldass, Proprietor, M/s. J.K. Offset Printer, No.7, Velrampet Main Road (Near Dr. Kalaignar Nagar), Mudaliarpet, Puducherry- 605 004. … Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE Dr. S. SUNDARAVADIVEU, PRESIDING MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER:

Thiru. M. Vinayagamorthy, Advocate FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Tvl.B.Murali, A.Senthilkumar, B.Rajendrakumar, E.Mourougane, And A.Revathy, Advocates

O R D E R

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 41 read with Section 47(1) (a) (iii) and( b ) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019(herein after called as the CP Act in short) against the order dated 04.04.2025 of the District Commission , Puducherry (herein after called as DC in short) in CC 09/25. The District Commission has set the petitioner herein ex parte vide the impugned order and assailing that order, this revision petition has been filed.

2. Gist of the complaint is that on 20.07.2022, the Petitioner sent a proforma invoice for a Shinohara 564 color offset printing machine, quoting ₹21,33,440 to the respondent. The Respondent paid ₹5,00,000 in installments as advance and later transferred ₹15,00,000 by RTGS on 01.10.2022, completing the payment for the machine. After receiving full payment, the Petitioner delayed installation, eventually delivering the machine only on 10.03.2023. However, the machine did not function properly after installation, resulting in financial loss and hardship for the Respondent. The Respondent requested a refund, which the Petitioner declined, leading the Respondent to file the present complaint seeking compensation totaling ₹26,48,440, including refund, mental agony, and litigation expenses.

3. The District Consumer Commission issued a notice on 24.02.2025. The Petitioner alleges that the summons was not served personally, but received by a nearby shop employee, Lakshmi, on 28.02.2025. Lakshmi handed part of the documents to the Petitioner only on 08.03.2025. The Petitioner engaged local counsel and handed over the vakalatnama on 02.04.2025; the matter was to be heard on 04.04.2025. Due to non-appearance, the Petitioner was set ex-parte on

04.04.2025.

4. The Petitioner subsequently engaged a new counsel and filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, submitting it on 08.05.2025, along with a reply. The District Commission returned the application on 30.05.2025, citing lack of jurisdiction and absence of such provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. Aggrieved by these events, the Petitioner has now filed a revision petition before the State Commission, The main grounds for challenge are:

(i) The Petitioner was not properly served with the summons and did not receive the complaint documents in time to prepare a defense.

(ii) The earlier counsel engaged by the Petitioner failed to follow up on the case, leading to the ex-parte order.

(iii) The Petitioner took swift steps to engage new counsel and present a defense once the documents were received.

(iv) The Petitioner argues that the commission’s order is contrary to established law and procedure, and that the Petitioner should not suffer due to the mistakes of legal advisors.

6. The Petitioner requests the State Commission to set aside the ex-parte order, allow them an opportunity to defend their case, and to pass any other orders as may be deemed just and proper.

7. The Respondent filed counter to the Revision petition giving A to H grounds which were found to be mostly irrelevant.

8. Heard both sides. The counsel for the petitioner relied on Order V, Rule 9 of CPC. The counsel for Respondent countered stating service of summons to the address would constitute sufficient service and assur