CIRCUIT BENCH OF TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI @ District Court Campus, Madurai-20.

PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH R.P.NO.2/2025 (Against the order in CC.No.183/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Tirunelveli)

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2025 The Manager Axis Bank Near Palayamkottai Bus Stand M/s. P. Padmanaban Palayamkottai Taluk Counsel for Tirunelveli District- 627 002 Petitioner / Opposite party Vs.

Satheesh Kumar S/o. Madasamy Door No.206, Police Colony M/s. R. Guruchakravarthy Shanthi Nagar, Palayamkottai Taluk Counsel for Tirunelveli District – 627 002 Respondent / Complainant This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / Opposite party praying to set aside the exparte order dt.17.10.2024 in CC.No.183/2024 by setting the opposite party as exparte, before the District Commission, Tirunelveli.

This petition coming before me for hearing on finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothsides through video conferencing, and upon perusing the documents, this commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open Court)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner /opposite party praying to set aside the order dt.17.10.2024 made in CC.No.183/2024 before the District Commission, Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioner/ opposite party was set exparte before the District Commission, Tirunelveli, for 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 case was posted for first appearance before the District Commission on 6.9.2024. On that day itself, the petitioner had appeared through counsel and had filed vakalat on their behalf. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 27.9.2024. On 27.9.2024, at request of the opposite party, the case was adjourned to 14.10.2024 for filing version. On the next date of hearing on 14.10.2024, since the counsel did not appear before the District Commission, again the case was adjourned to 17.10.2024. Since there was no representation on 17.10.2024 also, the opposite party had been set exparte. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, by setting the petitioner / opposite party as exparte, this Revision Petition is filed, praying to set aside the order, and also prays for a direction to the District Commission, to receive the written version.

4. 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 parties are 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 should be filed within a period of 45 days.

5. A perusal of the records would show that the complaint was taken on file on 20.8.2024, and a notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party for the hearing on 6.9.2024. As per the notes paper, the notice was served to the Petitioner/ opposite party on 28.8.2024, and on that day the opposite party, had appeared through counsel and based on their request, the case was adjourned to 27.9.2024 and again on 14.10.2024 for filing the written version of the opposite party. But on 14.10.2024 the opposite party had neither appeared nor filed their written version, and hence the case was again adjourned to 17.10.2024. But the petitioner was remained absent for that hearing also. Therefore, the opposite party was called absent, and was set exparte on 17.10.2024. Against the order impugned the present Revision Petition is filed.

6. Keeping the submission in mind, I have carefully gone through the documents available on record. Written arguments filed by both parties perused. 7. In t