IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH R.P.NO.83/2024 (Against the order in CC.No.197/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF JANUARY 2025 Branch Manager Canara Bank, Gomangalam Branch M/s. K.M. Anand Gomangalam Post Counsel for Pollachi, Chennai- 642 107 Petitioner / Opposite party Vs.

1. U.R.Babu S/o. R. Ramasamy No.1/274, Ooradithottam Koolanaickenpatti Gomangalam Post, Pollachi 2. Mrs. V. Rajalskshmi W/o. Ramasamy No.1/274, Ooradithottam Koolanaickenpatti Gomangalam Post, Pollachi Respondents / Complainants This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ Opposite party praying to set aside the order dt.14.10.2024 in CC.No.197/2024 by setting the opposite party as exparte, before the District Commission, Coimbatore.

This petition coming before me for hearing 13.1.2025, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for petitioner, and upon perusing the documents, this commission made the following order.

ORDER

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ opposite party praying to set aside the order dt.14.10.2024 made in CC.No.197/2024 before the District Commission, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner/ opposite party was set exparte before the District Commission, Coimbatore, for non-appearance and non-filing of version. Aggrieved over the order impugned the present Revision petition is filed, praying to set aside the order passed.

3. When the case had come up before this commission the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the documents have to be served alongwith notice, to count the limitation for filing the written version. But the Petitioner/ opposite party has not been served with the documents relied on by the complainant in the complaint alongwith notice. Thus they prayed for setting aside the order of setting the petitioner as exparte.

4. Inspite of service of notice, the Respondents/ complainants, remained absent.

5. As specified in Section 38(3)(a) of the CP Act, 2019, the District Commission shall grant 30 days time to the Opposite parties for filing their version and the said Section permits the Commission to extend the time by 15 more days and, in total, the Opposite party is entitled to a total respite of 45 days to file the written version of the case. Therefore, it is crystal clear, that the version of the opposite party shall be given within a period of 45 days.

6. A perusal of the record would show that the complaint was taken on file on 26.7.2024, and a notice was ordered to be served on the opposite party for the first hearing on 28.8.2024. As per the adjudications find in notes paper, the notice was served to the opposite party on 6.8.2024 itself. But inspite of service of notice, the Petitioner/ opposite party had neither appeared nor represented on 6.8.2024, and also to the subsequent hearings on 27.9.2024 and 14.10.2024. Since the mandate period of 45 days for filing version has been lapsed on 14.10.2024, the petitioner/opposite party has been set exparte by the District Commission.

Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present Revision has been filed.

7. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the notice had not been served alongwith the documents filed by the complainant, enabling them to file their version.

8. Keeping the submission in mind, I have carefully gone through the documents available on record.

9. As per the order of this commission in RP.No.10/2022, the dispute with regard to the service of notice, and about the computation of limitation for filing the written version has been clearly dealt with as follows:

Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub Section (2) of Section 13 would make the position absolutely clear that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of Notice accompanied by a copy of t