The 45-day statutory limit for filing a written statement in consumer disputes is mandatory and cannot be extended by Consumer Fora, regardless of the reasons for delay, including administrative changes due to bank mergers.

ORDER

Per Kalyani Kapse

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2,3 and 4under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Hereinafter referred as ‘The Act’) and thereby challenging the ex-parte order dated 29/06/2022 and 14/12/2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/811/2021, wherebyComplaint was proceeded ex-parte against O.P. No. 2,3 and 4.

2. After filing of the Revision Petition, Notices were served to the Respondents.

Respondent No.3 appeared and filed its say on the said Revision Petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Mushahid Ali, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and None for the Respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted thatAllahabad Bank stood merged with India Bank on 01/04/2020 as promulgated vide notification dated 4th March 2020. Indian Bank is having its Corporate Office at PB No. 5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. The instant application is being moved through its Chief Manager, Stressed Asset Management Branch at 73, Mittal Chambers, 7th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. That after the merger, Allahabad Bank ceased to exist and all its assets, liabilities, rights and interests stand merged with Indian Bank.The Respondent No. 1 (original complainant) has filed the above Complaint Case No. CC/811/2021 (Roopkumar v. Dena Bank & Ors.) before the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur.It is submitted that the present applicants have been arrayed as service providers without there being any relationship of Consumer-Service provider and as such issuance of notice dated 24/01/2022 itself is illegal.

5. The applicants submit that the learned District Commission has committed patent illegality by issuing notice to the applicant-bank in absence of any consumer relationship between the complainant and the applicant. There is a patent error visible on the face of the record and the complaint case is not maintainable against the applicant bank.It is submitted that the notice was received via email and the Zonal Manager (Law), Nagpur sought guidance from the H.O. Legal. It is submitted that the Union Cabinet approved the merger of Allahabad Bank on 4th March 2020. Indian Bank assumed control of Allahabad Bank on 1st April 2020. Due to this merger, there were certain administrative changes and the management of Indian Bank took some time to regulate the business and the functioning of the merged bank. Therefore, no approval could be received. Finally on 9th May 2023, an advisory was received and it took some time for the Nagpur branch to get details of the transaction from its Allahabad Branch.

6. It is submitted that the applicants applied for certified copy of the impugned Order on 19/05/2023 and the bank then decided to contact the advocate on the panel of the bank.After obtaining the certified copy of the said order, applicant instructed the counsel to file the Revision Application for setting aside the said ex-parte order on the following grounds.

7. The merger of Allahabad Bank with Indian Bank also caused a lot of administrative changes and as such quick advisory could not be obtained from the Head Office.That the non-appearance of the applicant was due to bona fide reasons and there is no willful laches or delay. (No prejudice would be caused to the Respondent No. I (complainant) if the present revision application is allowed.

8. Hence the applicant prayed for setting aside the Ex-parte order passed below Exh-1 on 29/06/2022 and 14/12/2022 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in CC/811/2021 (Roopkumar v. Dena Bank & Ors.) and also grant permission to file written version.

9. Respondent No. 3 appeared and filed reply and submitted that It is matter of record that the Respondent No. 1 (original complainant) has filed the Complaint Case No. CC/811/2021