Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/21/45

MPPKVVCO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANOOP TIWARI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AJAY DUBEY

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  REVISION PETITION NO. 45 OF 2021

(Arising out of order dated 19.07.2021 passed in C.C.No.44/2021 by District Commission, Damoh)

 

JUNIOR ENGINEER, M.P.POORVA KSHETRA

VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. (RURAL)

DISTRICT-DAMOH.                                                                                              …          PETITIONER

 

Versus

                 

ANOOP TIWARI & ANOTHER                                                                               …         RESPONDENT.

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :      MEMBER

  

                                      O R D E R

11.04.2023

 

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondents though served.

                                               

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

                        The petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in C.C.No.44/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.

2.                The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the notice issued to opposite party/petitioner was served but the petitioner failed to appear on 19.07.2021 before the District Commission and therefore the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due

-2-

to Covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore prayed that since the District Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on 19.07.2021, therefore, it deserves to be set-aside.

4.                After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the revision petition and the impugned order, we find that in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No. 21 of 2022, MA No.665 of 2021 and in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was excluded due to Covid-19 pendemic, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the District Commission for deciding the complaint in accordance with law.

5.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 23.05.2023.

6.                Petitioner may file reply to the complaint along with affidavit and documents on the date fixed aforesaid.

7.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

9.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petion stands allowed.  However, no order as to costs.

 

          (S. S. Bansal)         (A. K. Tiwari)      (D. K. Shrivastava)

           Presiding Member          Member                     Member