IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH R.P.NO.5/2026 (Against the order in CC.No.119/2025 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 Northern Arc Capital Limited Grievance Redressal Officer Indiqube Golf View Homes

6^th Floor, Tower B, 3^rd Cross Road M/s. A.S. Arvind S R Layout, Murgesh Pallya Counsel for Bangaluru – 560 017 Petitioner /2^nd Opposite party Vs.

1. Mrs. Srimathi D/o. R. Bhakthavachalam No.3/275, Krishna Nagar 4^th Street M/s. S. Saravanan Madhananthapuram, Porur Counsel for Chennai- 600 125 1^st Respondent / Complainant

2. Mobikwik Rep. by its Authorities Unit No.102, 1^st Floor Block-B, Pegasus One Golf Course Road, Sector-53 Served and called absent Gurugram, Haryana-122 003 2^nd Respondent/ 1^st Opposite party This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner /1^st Opposite party praying to set aside the exparte order dt.16.9.2025 in CC.No.119/2025 by setting the 1^st opposite party as exparte, before the District Commission, Chengalpattu.

This petition coming before me for hearing on finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for petitioner and 1^st Respondent, 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 / 2^nd Opposite party praying to set aside the order dt.16.9.2025 made in CC.No.119/2025 before the District Commission, Chengalpattu.

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

3. In this regard, a perusal of records would show that since the notice sent by the District Commission was neither served nor returned unserved, the notice was ordered to be served privately on the petitioner/ 2^nd opposite party on 22.7.2025. Since the private notice has been served on 19.8.2025, the District Commission has adjourned the matter to 28.8.2025, and further to 8.9.20205 and to 16.9.2025 for appearance of petitioner/ 2^nd opposite party and for filing of written version. Inspite of service of notice on 19.8.2025 the petitioner/ 2^nd opposite party neither appeared through counsel nor by themselves. Therefore, the District Commission has set the petitioner/ 2^nd opposite party as exparte by order dt.16.9.2025 by stating that “No representation for OP2, written version of OP2 not filed even after expiry of 30 days from 19.8.2025. No extension sought.

Hence the 2^nd opposite party is set exparte”.

As per 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 with the extended period of 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.

As far as this case is concerned, if at all the service is considered as complete service i.e., notice has been served alongwith complaint copy and documents, then the 45^th day i.e., the last date for filing version falls on 3.10.2025. But the petitioner/ 2^nd opposite party was set exparte on 16.9.2025 itself. Since the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte even prior to expiry of 45^th day, he can work out his remedy before the District Commission itself, by filing the review petition under Sec.40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4. This Commission, in the similar matter as per order dt.22.2.2023 in RP.No.10/2022 has elaborately held that “The District Commission cannot set the Opposite party as exparte before the completion of the Notice Period; as such it can pass the exparte order only if the version is not filed till the evening of 45^th day;”

In the above order, it was also further held that “although no express provision exists in the CP Act, authorizing the District Commission to