The filing of a written version without a supporting affidavit is a curable procedural irregularity, and if the statutory deadline falls on a holiday, filing on the next working day is legally permissible.

ORDER

Mr. Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner namely, Smt. Gouri Pradhan against the Respondents/opposite parties namely, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited represented by three different officials challenging the impugned Order no. 06 dated 24.07.2025 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Abasbari at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Complaint Case no.31 of 2025.

1.1. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that she filed complaint case against the opposite parties regarding repudiation of death claim of her husband and prayed for certain reliefs; after admission of that case next date was fixed on 23.06.2025 for S/R, A/D, appearance and W/V; the notice was received by the opposite parties on 04.06.2025; from 04.06.2025 the statutory period for filing W/V was over on 18.07.2025; the opposite parties filed written version without affidavit on 24.07.2025 with a prayer to file additional written version on 24.07.2025. Thereafter on 24.07.2025 the O.P. put up the record and filed the additional written version and prayed for acceptance of the additional written version which the complainant refused to accept; on hearing the Ld. District Commission directed the complainant/revisionist to receive the copies of both written version and additional written version which is beyond law etc.

1.2. So, the Revisionists/ OP No., 1 & 2 have filed this Revision Petition inter alia on the following grounds:

i) that Ld. Commission below erred in holding that the opposite parties filed their written version without supported by affidavit; the additional written version is actually the written version of the opposite parties;

ii) that the Ld. Commission below wrongly held that as there was no quorum on 21.07.2025 it was not possible to pass ex parte order;

iii) that Ld. Commission below failed to consider the strict limitation period to file written version as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which cannot be extended beyond 45 days period;

iv) that the Ld. Commission below without any lawful reason wrongly held that additional written version is actually the written version of the opposite parties;

v) that the impugned order has vitiated the true spirit of the Consumer Protection Act etc.

2. The following points are to be considered for determination of this Revision Petition.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

i) Whether Ld. Commission below has passed the impugned Order illegally or with material irregularity;

ii) whether the impugned Order deserves to be set aside;

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order under challenge in this Revision is reproduced as hereunder:

“Order No. 06 Date: 24.07.2025 Record is put up by petition by the O.Ps.

O.Ps. file additional W/V along with documents.

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps submits that Ld. Advocate for the Complainant refuses to receive the copy of put up petition though the Ld. Advocate endorsed “seen”. Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. further submits that on 21.07.2024 Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps filed W/V on behalf of the O.Ps with a prayer to file additional written version and the O.Ps filed additional written version today and prays for acceptance of additional written version.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the copy of W/V dated 21.07.2025 was not served upon the complainant and that was filed after expire of statutory period and said W/V was not supported by affidavit by the O.P and for this reason