Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.
Common Order.
1) Petitioner Mr.Niraj Dambhare has preferred the present revision petitions feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30/05/2022 passed by Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint Nos.CC/131/21, CC/130/21, CC/128/21, CC/129/21 and CC/127/21 by which the application filed by the present petitioner for accepting the written version on record came to be rejected. Short facts leading to the filing of the present revision petitions are as under :-
2) Respondent/complainants have filed the consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the petitioner/O.P. After filing of the complaints notice was issued to O.P. but the O.P. failed to file written version on record within stipulated period of 45 days and so the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur passed an order proceeding ex-parte against present petitioner. Against the said order dated 02/12/2021 the present petitioner had came up in revision Nos.RP/13/22, RP/14/22, RP/15/22, RP/11/22 and RP/12/22 and the said Consumer Commission subsequently passed an order setting aside the order dated 02/12/2021 after imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/- and directed the petitioner to file the version within a period of 15 days. The State Commission also directed the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur to decide the complaint afresh after taking the written version on record. It appears thereafter the present petitioner paid the cost imposed and thereafter moved an application for permission to take the written version on record, but the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur rejected the application on the ground that the written version was filed after the period of 15 days by holding that the written version ought to have been filed on or before 27/05/2022. It is against this subsequent order dated 30/05/2022 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur that the present petitioner has come up before this Commission.
3) After filing of this revision petitions notice was issued to respondents/complainants. Respondents have duly served and appeared.
4) We have heard the learned advocate Mr.Dubey for petitioner as well as the learned advocate Mr.Sawal for respondents. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 30/05/2022 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint Nos. CC/131/21, CC/130/21, CC/128/21, CC/129/21 and CC/127/21. We have also gone through the record and proceedings which are filed by the petitioner on record. There is no serious dispute that the present petitioner Mr.Niraj Dambhare had earlier also filed revision petitions bearing Nos.RP/13/22, RP/14/22, RP/15/22, RP/11/22 and RP/12/22 challenging the order dated 02/12/2021 passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.CC/131/22 whereby the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur proceeded the ex-parte against the petitioner while deciding the earlier revision petitions bearing Nos.RP/13/22, RP/14/22, RP/15/22, RP/11/22 and RP/12/22 were allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 02/12/2021 subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent within a period of 15 days from receipt of order and also to file written version within a period of 15 days of receipt of order.
5) It is vehemently submitted by advocate Mr.dubey for petitioner that certified copy of the order passed in revision petitions were received by the present petitioner on 12/05/2022 and so the petitioner Mr.Niraj Dambhare ought to have filed the written version within 15 days on or before 27/05/2022. It is submitted by Mr.Dubey, learned advocate for petitioner that on 28/05/2022 and 29/05/2022 there was holiday being Saturday and Sunday respectively and so the present petitioner filed his written submission on 30/05/2022 after delay of one day. But the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur rejected the application for permission to file written version on record on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed the written version on or before 27/05/2022 but the same was filed on 30/05/2022 after delay of one day. We have also heard advocate Mr.Sawal learned advocate appearing for the respondents and he has strongly opposed the submissions of advocate Mr.Dubey. It is submitted by advocate Mr.Sawal that the petitioner (O.P.) were playing delaying tactics. Further advocate Mr.Sawal learned advocate for respondents has also submitted that present revision petitions itself are not maintainable in law as the petitioner himself not complied the earlier order passed in revision petitions Nos.RP/13/22, RP/14/22, RP/15/22, RP/11/22 and RP/12/22 by filing the written version within stipulated period of 15 days as directed.
6) In view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for petitioner as well as respondents. We have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned order dated 30/05/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur by which the application for permission to file written version came to be rejected. Bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30/05/2022 shows that the petitioner ought to have filed the written version on or before 27/05/2022 but the same came to be filed on 30/05/2022 on the pretext that on 28/05/2022 and 29/05/2022 there was holiday being Saturday and Sunday, but it is clear that the stipulated period was to end on 27/05/2022. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Dubey that mistake was committed inadvertently and there was no malafide intention to disobey the order of State Commission. Further it is submitted that the cost amount of Rs.50,000/- was also duly paid within stipulated period.
7) During the course of argument learned advocate for petitioner has relied upon one judgment in the case of M/s.Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Ltd.…V/s…M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. & others, reported in 2022 ALL SCR 158. We have gone through the said judgment . Similarly Mr.Sawal, learned advocate for respondents has also placed reliance upon one judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others…..V/s……Achyut Kashinath Karekar and others, reported in (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 541: (2011)4 Supreme Court Cases (Civil). In the said judgment it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that District Forams and State Commissions do not have power to set aside their own order or replace their own order. But in the case present before us we not dealing with recall of our own order and the impugned order under challenge is dated 30/05/2022 passed by the learned Aditional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. As such the judgments on which reliance is placed by learned advocate for respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8) In view of this submissions made by Advocate Mr.Dubey appearing for petitioner, we feel that though the petitioner had not strictly complied with the earlier order dated 21/04/2022 but since the matters were only related to delay of one days and satisfactory cause is shown, some leniency can be shown and time can be granted to petitioner after saddling heavy cost upon the petitioner and so we pass the following order.
//ORDER//
- Revision petition Nos.RP/22/28, RP/22/29, RP/22/30, RP/22/31
and RP/22/32 are hereby allowed.
- Order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer
Commission Nagpuris hereby set aside subject to payment of
cost of Rs.2000/- each revision petition within one week from
the date of receipt of order and on payment of cost the written
Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur shall
thereafter proceed inaccordance with law.
