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

BEFORE:- PRESIDENT Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH R.P.No.03/2026 (Against the order dated: 18.12.2025 in CC.No.104/2025 on the file of the DCDRC, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF JANUARY 2026 The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, South By Pass Road, Vannarapettai, BSNL Office 1^st Floor M/s.V. Balasubramanian, Tirunelveli District. Counsel for .. Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

Vs.

Eswaran S/o.Kandasamy, 1/448, Pallapatti, Thiruthangal, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, In-Person, .. Respondent/Complainant This Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner /Opposite party praying to set aside the order dated 18.12.2025 in CC.No.104/2025 setting the petitioner ex-parte and coming before me for final hearing today and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the documents, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the order dated 18.12.2025 made in C.C.No.104/2025 setting the petitioner ex-parte by the District Commission, Virudhunagar District @

Srivilliputhur.

2. The petitioner/opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur, for having failed to file their written version and aggrieved over the above order impugned the present Revision Petition has been preferred to set aside the same.

3. On perusal of the material records would clearly show that a notice along with a copy of complaint was served to the opposite party on 15.11.2025 and as the notice was served to the petitioner/opposite party along with the complaint, the statutory period of 45 days for filing their version commences from 15.11.2025 itself. The 45^th days i.e., the last date for filing the version falls on 30.12.2025. But the petitioner/opposite party was set ex-parte on 18.12.2025 itself the first date of hearing, prior to expiry of 45 days. Further, it is found that the statutory period of 45 days for filing the written version has not been lapsed. Since the opposite party was set ex-parte even prior to expiry of 45 days, he is entitled to put forth his contention before the District Commission as per section 38 (3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also entitled to get remedy under section 40 of the above Act, 2019 by filing a Review Petition before the District Commission under Section

40 of the above Act.

4. This Commission, well settled in a similar case, in R.P.No.10/2022, dated 22.02.2023 has categorically held that “The District Commission cannot set the Opposite party ex-parte before completion of the Notice Period; as such it can pass the ex-parte order only if the version is not filed till the evening of 45^th day;”

In the above order, this Commission also emphatically held that “although no express provision exists in the CP Act, authorizing the District Commission to set aside the orders passed by them, they can review their orders when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as provided in Sec.40 of the Act;”

5. In view of the decision held above, as per Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the petitioner/opposite party is at liberty to file a petition before the District Commission itself for reviewing the ex-parte order dated 18.12.2025 passed against them and to get set aside same. On filing such a petition by the petitioner/opposite party, the District Commission is confined to consider the same positively and pass an appropriate order.

6. With the above observation, this Revision Petition is disposed of.

There is no order as to cost in this Revision Petition.

R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT.

INDEX : YES / NO