STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Revision Petition No. RP/2025/13 (Arisen from the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangli dated 08/04/2025 in CC No. 332/2023)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Bharat Bhavan, 496, Currimbhai Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai through its Territory Manager, ‘C’, 12, MIDC, Wai Dist. Satara …. APPELLANT Vs.

1. Smt. Rajashree Ramesh Bhat R/o R.S.No. 790/4/8, B Ward, Pachgaon Road, Raigad Colony, Kolhapur

2. Sou. Dipti Sandip Patil R/o Kalamba, Karveer, Kolhapur

3. Sou. Bhabyashri Yogesh Darwan R/o A Ward, Fulewadi, 4th Bus Stop, Kolhapur

4. Suryaprakash Bharat Gas Agency, 745, A Ward, Nikam Park, Devkar Panand, Kolhapur

5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Prabhadevi Wesh, Mumbai 400 025 ..... RESPONDENTS BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. Sunil Y. Sakhare for the appellant Adv. Sahil Kasabekar for the Respondent ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned District Commission in Consumer complaint No. 332/2023 dated 8^th April 2024 for rejecting the application for setting aside the NO WS order.

Facts of the petition

2. The appellant has contended that in the original Consumer complaint No. 332/2023 the District Commission issued notice to the opponent. The opponent who is presently appellant has received the notice as on 25/7/2023. The date of appearance was fixed as on 7^th August 2023. Adv. for the appellant appeared on 11^th August 2023 before the District Commission. Then, the matter was posted on 25^th August 2023. As on 25^th August 2023, the posts of President and Members were vacant and there was no authorised person of the Bench to accept the written statement in the matter. The appellant was helpless and was unable to submit their written statement on record. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 23/11/2023. On that date, the appellant tried to submit their written statement in the matter but the same was not accepted by the learned District Commission and the matter was posted as on 15^th December 2023. The appellant has moved application alongwith written statement. Again the matter was posted to 8^th January 2024 and thereafter, to 8^th April 2024 respectively. As written statement was not submitted within the stipulated period of 45 days, the respondent has raised objection to accept the written statement. As on 8^th April 2024, the application for setting aside the NO WS order was preferred by the appellant and after hearing both the sides, the said application was rejected. Therefore, the present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the alleged order as well as allowing the present appellant to file their written statement in the original consumer complaint.

3. After admitting the complaint, the notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared. Heard arguments of both the sides.

4. Perused appeal memo and record produced alongwith the appeal memo compilation. After perusal of the appeal memo and hearing of the both sides, we come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed as reasoned below.

Reasoning

5. The counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly, the notice was served on 25^th July 2023 and the appearance date was 7^th August 2023 and thereafter, on 23th November 2023, the written statement was placed on record which was not accepted by the learned District Commission. It is contended that the appellant’s Advocate’s wife was expired and there was a ritual ceremony as on 23^rd November 2023. Hence, personally, the Counsel for the appellant was not able to remain present for submission of the written statement. However, through junior counsel, he placed written statement before the District Commission, but it was refused to be accepted as stipulated perio