ORDER
PER MRS.KALYANI KAPSE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER
i. The Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (For the sake of brevity 'The Act') and thereby challenging the ex-parte order dated 16/10/2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (Hereinafter referred as "The Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. CC/554/2023, whereby Complaint was proceeded ex-parte against Opposite Party.
ii. After filing of the Revision Petition, Notice was served to the Respondent. Respondent appeared and filed its say on the said Revision Petition.
iii. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a leading Tele communication Company and offers variety of services including pre-paid and post-paid mobile services
1
across India. The petitioner has its head office at Gurugram, Haryana and has several regional offices in Maharashtra. The Petitioner herein has also established various Company Owned stores in the city of Nagpur. That the Respondent herein named above has filed a consumer complaint bearing C.C No. 554/2023 against the Petitioner(s) before the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur. Consumer case was registered on 01/09/2023.
iv. Complaint was admitted.Notices were served. That the Petitioners received Notices along with a copy of the Complaint filed in the above mentioned registered consumer case at its Gurugram Office and Nagpur Office. The Noticewas received at the Petitioner's Gurugram office on 18/09/2023 and the Notice at the Nagpur Office of the Petitioner was served on16/09/2023. That the summons that were served to the Petitioner mentioned that a Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Respondent before the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur and that the Petitioners have to file a reply within 30 days of receiving the notice.
v. The tracking report which clearly shows that the summons were dispatched by the Ld. District Consumer Commission, Nagpur on 15/09/2023 and the same were received on 18/09/2023 while the impugned order was passed on 16/10/2023.That on the day i.e. 16/10/2023 when the impugned order was passed against the Petitioners, the Petitioner still had 2 days to file its rightful reply in the matter. Moreover, as per Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Petitioner could also be granted another 15 days after the completion of 30 days for filing a reply.
vi. That moreover the ex-parte order passed in the interim application is also wrong and is liable to be set aside as a copy of the interim application was not even served along with the summons and complaint by deliberate action on part of the Respondent. That the District Consumer Commission, Nagpur has made a grave error in passing order dated 16/10/2023. The decision of the Ld. Commission is in violation to the Consumer Protection Act and is against the principle of Natural Justice and the principle of audi alteram partem.
2
vii. In light of the above, Petitioner prayed to set aside the ex-parte order dated 16/10/2023 defeating the right of the Petitioner to contest the Complaint and also set aside the ex-parte order passed in the interim application filed by the Respondent.Respondent filed the reply and submitted that the said consumer complaint was filed on 01/09/2023, the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur issued notice dated: 30/08/2023 the said Notices were sent through RPAD service dated: 15/09/2023 and received by petitioner dated: 16/09/2023. As per the mandate of the consumer protection act, 2019 the petitioners were supposed to file their reply within the time-frame of 30 days.
viii. Respondent further contended that it was important to note that, although the petitioners were served the petitioners failed to appear or give reply when the matter was listed dated: 16/10/2023 and later 18/10/2023 the petitioners appeared and have deliberately tried to seek an adjournment/seek time thus the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur passed an interim order in the favour of the respondent. It is untrue that, the time of 30 days was not completed after the service, the petitioners did appear before the Ld. Commission dated 18/10/2023 and did not appear before the Ld. Commission dated 16/10/2023 when the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur kept the matter on board wherein the time of 30 dyads was surpassed, looking at the exigency of the matter asked for reply and the petitioners asked for adjournment to file reply dated 18/10/2023 the Ld. Commission passed an interim order.
ix. We have heard Mr. Ketan Bhoskar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sahil Mate, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
x. On careful perusal it is seen that Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are duly served on 18/09/2023. Opposite Party No.3 is duly served on 20/09/2023 and Opposite Party No.4 is duly served on 16/09/2023.
xi. We have observed that Revision Petitioner challenged the order dated 16/10/2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No. CC/554/2023 whereby the complaint proceeded ex-parte against the present
3
Revision Petitioner. On careful perusal of Postal Tracking Report which reveals that Opponents are served in the following manner- 18/09/2023----O.P. No. 1
18/09/2023----O.P. No. 2
20/09/2023----O.P. No. 3
16/09/2023----O.P. No. 4
xii. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner submitted that notices were issued by the District Commission which were made returnable on 16/09/2023 and 18/09/2023. However, before the returnable date, i.e., on 16/10/2023, the District Commission passed the impugned order directing that the matter shall proceed ex-parte. It is observed that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of appearing and filing its written version, thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice.
xiii. We have perused the impugned order and the record.It is undisputed that the notice issued to the revision petitioner was returnable on 16/10/2023 and 18/10/2023. The District Commission, however, proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte order on 16/10/2023, two days prior to the date fixed for appearance and allowed the application for interim relief filed by the Complainant on 18/10/2023.The settled principle of law is that no adverse order can be passed against a party before the date fixed for its appearance. Such action amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing and is violative of the fundamental principles of Natural Justice.Since the District Commission proceeded ex-parte before the returnable date itself, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
xiv. Perused the record it is observed that Opposite Party No. 4 was duly served on 16/10/2023, but inspite of that failed to file written version on record. Hence the learned lower court has rightly proceeded thecomplaint ex-parte against O.P. No. 4.
//ORDER//
i. The Revision Petition is allowed.
4
ii. The order dated 16/10/2023 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 554/2023 proceeding ex-parte against Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 is set aside.
iii. The District Commission shall restore the complaint to its file and afford the revision petitioners an opportunity to file its written version in accordance with law.
iv. The parties shall appear before the District Commission on //2026 without awaiting fresh notice.
v. The District Commission shall thereafter proceed to decide the complaint on its own merits.
vi. No order as to costs.
vii. Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
..................
KALYANI KAPSE
PRESIDING MEMBER
..................
SHAILA D. WANDHARE
MEMBER
5