STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR REVISION PETITION NO. SC/CB2/27/RP/44/2018 THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PRESENT ADDRESS - OFFICE AT REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR DIVISION, RAGHUJI NAGAR, MANEWADA ROAD, NAGPUR-440

009,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus NAMDEO TUKARAM BHAKRE PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. TAH. AHERI DIST. CHANDRAPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

ADV. RAUT FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE DATED: 29/09/2025

ORDER

(Delivered on 29/09/2025)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The revision petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22/06/2018 in respect to ‘ex-parte order’ against him passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in CC No.77/2018.

2. We have heard the learned Advocate of the revision petitioner Shri.Raut. The respondent is duly served with notice. However, the respondent neither filed his written submission to the present revision nor advanced argument on his behalf.

Perused the record and documents produced along with the revision petition.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the revision petitioner that the learned District Forum, Nagpur by order dated 22/06/2018, wrongly proceeded ex- parte in Consumer Complaint Case No.77/2018, though the petitioner was entitled to file appearance in 45 days’ time to reply. The notice was served on 21/05/2018 and the 45-day period expired only on 05/07/2018. However, before this period was over, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order without verifying the time limit. The counsel appeared on 23/08/2018 to file reply but was denied opportunity as the matter had already been proceeded ex-parte. This has resulted in violation of natural justice and grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in other identical cases on the same issue, the petitioner has filed replies and similar claims have already been rejected by this Commission with judgment dated 09/06/2014. No harm will be caused to the non-applicant if the petitioner is permitted to file reply. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 22/06/2018 be set aside and the petitioner be granted opportunity to appear and file reply for proper adjudication of the matter.

4. Notices in the present revision petition were duly served upon the respondent. He has not filed his reply to the present petition.

5. On considering the submissions of the parties, the only point that arises for our determination for adjudicating the present revision petition is whether the learned District Forum was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the revision petitioner by impugned order dated 22/06/2018 without granting 45 days’ time for appearance and to file reply violating the principles of natural justice in the given set of facts.

6. Upon perusal of the record, particularly the certified copy of complaint (CC/76/2018) with impugned order dated 22/06/2018, it appears that the consumer complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the first notice was issued on 22/02/2018. It also appears from the contention of the revision petitioner that notice of appearance of the said complaint was duly served to them on 21/05/2018. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that on 23/08/2018, their counsel appeared to file reply but was denied opportunity as the matter had already been proceeded ex-parte by impugned order dated 22/06/2018 instead the statutory period of 45-day expired only on 05/07/2018.

7. It is material to note that the time period for filing of reply under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is governed by Section 13(2)(a), which provides that “the District Forum shall refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or s