STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI REVISION PETITION NO.RP/2024/44 (Arising out of the order dated 04/04/2024 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission Sangli in consumer complaint no.CC/24/27)

Sou.Asmita Vijay Patil R/o.Vijay Arcade, Opp.Market Yard Near Bapat Mala, Sangli Taluka Miraj, District Sangli ....... Revision Petitioner / Org.OP Versus Mr.Namadev Vitthal Suryawanshi ………Respondent/org.complainant R/o.Near Sangli Sakhar Karkhana Bhavan Madhavnagar Road, Sangli BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv Madhav Tamhankar for the revision petitioner.

Adv Rajeev Lale for respondent.

ORAL ORDER (Dt.16/03/2026)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner against the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission, Sangli as on 04/04/2024, in consumer complaint no.CC/24/27, below Exhibit-1, whereby the order was passed against present revision petitioner /original opponent that in spite of service of notice and appearance, failed to file written statement within time. Therefore, the matter was proceeded without written statement of opponent. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

2. The revision petitioner has made a ground that they had appeared before the Ld. District Consumer Commission and the matter was kept on 11/03/2024 for filing the written statement, as the notice was duly served on the petitioner and they were required to file their written statement to the consumer complaint within a period of 30 days from the receipt of notice from the Ld. District Consumer Commission. However, they failed to do so, as the petitioners were trying to settle the issue between the parties.

3. It is further contended in the grounds of the revision petition that from February 2024 onwards, there was some personal difficulty and personal problem in the family, so the petitioner was not in a position to contact the Advocate for filing say, so also the petitioner was suffering from some ladies health issue and due to ill health also the petitioner was not in a position to contact the Advocate to prepare say in the matter. The petitioner was not in a position to collect the papers and contact the advocate for filing the written statement, as the petitioner was not in a position to tackle the situation due to health problem and family disturbances.

4. The matter was posted before the Ld. District Consumer Commission on

04/04/2024 and on the same day, the Ld. District Consumer Commission passed the above mentioned order with regard to written statement, hence the revision petition is filed seeking direction that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission may be set aside and the present revision petitioner may be allowed to file say and/or written statement in the present consumer complaint.

5. In the said revision petition, the notice was issued to the respondent. After service of notice, the respondent appeared and filed say to the revision petition. The respondent contended in the reply that the Ld. District Consumer Commission has not committed any mistake in passing ‘No written statement and say’ on 04/04/2024. It is further contended in the reply that the revision petitioner/original respondent had filed an application through her husband with his signature in the original consumer complaint as on 11/03/2024 for the purpose of getting the matter adjourned with a view to engage an advocate. The said application was allowed and the matter was posted as on 28/03/2024 for engaging the advocate and for filing say/written statement. Again the revision petitioner had filed an application stating therein the false reasons and obtained the date 04/04/2024. But on that date also, the revision petitioner did not file say/written statement. Therefore, the Ld. District Consumer Commission has rightly passed an order, which does not require any