PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.`

              Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have preferred this Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30/8/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur, in Consumer Complaint No.CC/21/281 whereby the learned District Consumer Commission proceeded ex parte against the present petitioner. Briefly stated, it is the case of the Petitioners/Opponents that the Respondent/complainant Jyotsna Kale had filed a Consumer complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the present petitioners. It is contended by the petitioner that the said complaint came to be filed on 10/6/2021 and the notice came to be issued on 1/7/2021. It is contended that the Complaint was fixed for appearance of the Petitioners/Opponents on 18/8/2021, but the petitioner No.1 & 2 namely HDFC standard Life Insurance Corporation could not appear on the said date as the legal department of the company was taking some time to engage the counsel. It is contended that after giving necessary instructions to the counsel, the counsel appeared in the matter but meanwhile, the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur had passed an order to proceed exparte against the Petitioners/Opponents. It is contended that since  the complaint has proceeded exparte against the petitioners, they did not get an opportunity to defend the matter on all aspects or to contest the complaint. It is contended that the petitioners are ready to file written statement and have no intention to avoide the judicial proceedings. Petitioners, therefore, have prayed that the impugned order passed against the present petitioners on 30/8/2021 by the Learned District Consumer Commission be quashed and set aside and due opportunity of filing written version be granted to them.

                After the filing of Revision Petition, due notice was issued to the Respondent and Respondent has appeared through advocate. We have heard Shri.Shaha, learned advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Adv.Adase learned advocate for the Respondent. We have also perused the record.

                It is submitted by Learned advocate for the Respondent that the Petitioners were negligent and were avoiding judicial proceedings and so the Revision Petition is not tenable. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the Respondent that the Learned District Consumer Commission has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 30/8/2021. Further it is argued by the learned advocate for the Respondent that there is no bonafide case put up by the Petitioners for setting aside the impugned order and so the petition needs to be dismissed.

           We have heard learned advocate for the Revision Petitioner and learned advocate for the Respondent. We have also perused the record. Bare perusal of the record would go to show that after the Complaint case was filed, notices were issued to the petitioners/Opponents and the same were also duly served as per the track report filed by the Complainant. It is also clear that the complaint proceeded exparte against the Petitioners/Opponents on 30/8/2021 as the Opponents failed to appear and to file written version. Petitioners have come with an explanation that they could not engage an advocate as some time was consumed in appointment of advocate by the legal department. In the light of this statement, we feel that the ground taken by the petitioners cannot be termed as unsatisfactory or deliberate. Respondent has not placed on record any material to show that there was deliberate delay on the part of petitioners but it is clear that the petitioners were duly served and copies of the track report are on record.  We ae of the view that though the petitioners did not appear in the matter despite duly served, due opportunity needs to be granted to the Revision Petitioners to defend their case and also to file written version before the learned District Consumer Commission on imposing suitable cost. As such we are of the view that the impugned order dated 30/8/2021 will have to be set aside in order to given an opportunity to the petitioners to appear in the matter and contest the consumer complaint on merits. However, we are of the  view that the impugned order dated 30/8/2021 can be set aside after imposing suitable cost on the petitioners and so we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Revision Petition is hereby allowed.

ii.          The Judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/21/281 dated 30/08/ is hereby  set aside subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the Respondent within a period of Two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

iii.         Learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is hereby directed to decide the complaint afresh by giving due opportunity to both the parties and to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

iv.       Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.