STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Revision Petition No.RP/24/89 (Arisen out of order dated 31/05/2024 in CC/24/48 passed by the District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai)

1.Dr.Kamlesh K.Khandelwal B-1, Botawala Building Tardeo Road, Opp.Swati Snacks Mumbai 400 007

2.M/s.Bhatia General Hospital Tukaram Javji Road, Tardeo Mumbai 400 007

3.Mr.Kuntal S.Padamai C/o.M/s. Bhatia General Hospital Tukaram Javji Road, Tardeo Mumbai 400 007 ....... Revision Petitioners/

4.Mr.Sanjay K.Jaitha Org.OPs C/o.M/s. Bhatia General Hospital Tukaram Javji Road, Tardeo M umbai 400 007 Versus

1.Smt.Tabassum S. Shaikh D-407, Premier Residency Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070

2.Mr.Arbaz S.Shaikh D-407, Premier Residency Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070

3.Mrs.Tarannum S.Shaikh ………Respondents/org.complainants House no.2-12-94/P, Harsul Road Opp.Maulana Azad College Roza Bagh, Aurangabad 431 001

4.Mrs.Taherim S.Shaikh Plot no.41, N-13/A Himayat Bagh, Aurangabad 431 001 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Ajay Pawar for revision petitioners.

Advocate Mohit Bhansali for respondents FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.22/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani

1. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner u/sec.47(1)(b)

of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 31/05/2024 below Exhibit-1 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/48/2024.

The brief facts of the case-

2. The revision petitioners appeared in the original consumer complaint no.CC/48/2024 and the “No WS” order is passed against the OP nos.1 & 2 and “ex-parte order” is passed against the OP nos.4 & 5 for not filing of the written statement within stipulated period of time as prescribed under the law.

3. By filing this revision petition, the revision petitioners have prayed that “No WS” order and “Ex-parte” order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission should be set aside and the original consumer complaint may be dismissed.

4. The notice was issued to the opponents. The opponents appeared and objected the present revision petition contending that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31/05/2024 pertaining to “No WS order” against the OP nos.1 & 2 and “Ex-parte” order against the original OP nos.4 & 5 in the original consumer complaint. The present revision petition is not filed to challenge the admission of original complaint. Hence, the contentions made in the petition pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint will not survive or subsist.

5. We heard both the learned counsel for the parties. We observe the following things and the reasons, by passing the following order-

LAW & REASONING:-

6. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd. in Civil Appeal nos.10941-10942 of 2013 decided on 4^th March, 2020, wherein it is held that the “Ld.District Consumer Commission has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint”.

7. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the opponents received the notice as on 03/04/2024. As on 31/05/2024 the opponent nos.1 & 2 appeared in the original complaint through advocate and on the same date “No WS” order is passed against the OP nos.1 & 2 and the ex-parte order was passed against the OP nos.4 & 5. We also perused the order wherein it is contended that OP no.3 expired. The same is informed by the counsel/advocate for OP nos.1 & 2 to the Ld.District Consumer Commission. Admittedly, 4