Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 189
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(under Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad, Hyderabad
500 004
RP No.176/2022 AGAINSTIA NO.38 OF 2022 IN CC NO.222 OF 2021
ON
THE FILE OF DISTRICT cOMMISSION, MAHABUBNAGAR
Between
The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank-0036, H.No.2-3-13/A/1
Sri Sai Balaji Towers, Raichur Road,
Near Ashok Talkies Road,
Mahabubnagar - 509 001.
...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/
Opposite party No.2
And
1)
Smt P.Shivaleela W/o S.Aman Kumar,
aged 35 years, Occupation: Housewife,
R/o H.No. 1
-45, Kothapally village,
Midjil mandal, Mahabubnagar district.
Respondent/Respondent No.1/
Complainant
The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank, New Bazar,
Station Road, Jadcherla,
Mahabubnagar town & district,
Presently the Union Bank of India,
Beside Vikas Bharat Gas, Gunj,
Badepally, Jadcherla,
Mahabubnagar district
509 301.
2)
Respondent/Respondent No.2/
Opposite party No. 1
Counsel for Review Petitioner :
M/s Vamaraju Srikrishnudu
Counsel for the Respondents
R1-Served with notice
Sri T.Sasi Kumar-R2
cORAM
President
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal
Smt Meena Ramanathan
Member
and
Sri K.Ranga Rao
Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of
January Two Thousand Twenty Three
For the Petitioner: M/s Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu
For the Respondent:
ORDER
k** This revision petition is filed by the Opposite party No.2 in CC No.222 of 2021 on the file of District Commission, Mahabubrnagar aggrieved by the orders dated 09.06.2022 by and under which the Distriet Commianion, dinminaed the appleation necking tu net anide Ihe ordera dated 17,12.2021 aelting the Revision I'rlitloncr ex pHrle
2) leurd the leumed counael appearing lor the Revinion l'etitiver Andd also the Responlent/0ppoite pnty No,2 The impugned order dated 09,06.2022 pussed by the District Commissio1n, Mahabubnupar seeking to at asile the order lated 17.12.2021 is under challenge. The sid order dated 17.12.2021 reads Undcr:
- "Sri R.Venkat Reddy, Advocate filed vakalath on behal/ of OP1.
- OP2 called absent.
- Hence, set ex parte, or Jilng Counter of OP1, cull on 03.01.2022."
4) Subsequent to above orcders, th: Revision Petitioner movVeel an application bearing IA No.38/2022 secking to sct asicle the albove orders which came to be dismissed on 09.06.2022 with the following observation.
"After hearing both the Petitioner/ OP No.2 and Respondent/ Complainnant in the above 1.A., because of that the District Commission had no power to set aside the exparte order and there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Aet.
The petition had no merits.
In the resul, the petition is dismissed."
5) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite party No.2 that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.W.P., No.3 of 2020, the right to file the written version cannot be forfeited on 17.12.2021 since the Supreme Court has enlarged the period for doing all such activilies till 28.02.2022.
6) We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel 'appearing for the Revision Petitioner.
On 17. 12.2021 i.c., the date on which the right to file the written version of the Opposite party No.2 was forfeited falls within the period covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 which directs that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for all purposes.
Therefore, the District Forum ought not to have set the Revision Petitioner ex parte. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from material irregularity warranting interference and hence the revision is liable to be allowed.
7) the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the n 1 of the District Commission, Mahabubnagar.
Orders dated 17.12.202 ne Revision Petitioner/Opposite party No.2 should lile its appearance and also the written version on 06.02.2023 i.c., the date on which the The revision is accordingly Consumer complaint is said to be posted.
costs.
allowed and the parties to bear their own
