KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 10/2022

ORDER DATED: 14.07.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 114/2020 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

The Branch Manager, ESAF Small Finance Bank, Thannimootil Building, Ground floor, Near SC UP School, Pazhavangadi, P.O., Ranni. 

(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Lalu T.A, Puthusserimala P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Appollo Bounder, Gateway Building, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 001.

3. Bharath Motors (Mahindra Dealer), Thazhe Vettipuram, Mylapra P.O., Pathanamthitta-689 671.

4. Anoop (Mahindra Dealer), Sales Manager, Bharath Motors, Thazhe Vettipuram, Mylapra P.O., Pathanamthitta-689 671.

5. Anand Mahindra, Chairman, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 5^th Floor, Mahindra Towers, G.M. Boslale Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 018.
6. Pawan Kumar Goenka, Managing Director/CEO, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 5^th Floor, Mahindra Towers, G.M. Boslale Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 018.

(By Adv. R. Narayan for R2, R5 & R6)

ORDER

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This revision petition is filed by the 6^th opposite party in C.C. No. 114/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (in short the District Forum) against the order passed by the District Forum dated 23.12.2020, by which he was set ex-parte.

2.  In the revision petition it is stated by the revision petitioner that the case was posted before the District Forum on 05.11.2020 for the appearance of the revision petitioner/6^th opposite party.  But due to Covid related restrictions and due to the fact that some of the staff were affected with Covid-19, the office of the revision petitioner was functioning partially on those days.  So the notice received from the District Forum could not be processed for the appearance of the revision petitioner before the District Forum.  Thereafter, when the revision petitioner started resuming its normal working schedule, the notice issued from the District Forum got misplaced.  When the revision petitioner recovered the misplaced notice on 15.02.2022 it was learned that the District Forum set the revision petitioner ex-parte on 23.12.2020 due to non-appearance.  Immediately on getting the misplaced notice the petitioner has entrusted a counsel to get a certified copy of the order and it was received on 23.02.2022.  The petitioner is having valid contentions in the case and in order to allow the petitioner to defend their case, the order of the District Forum is to be set aside.  So the prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order passed by the District Forum by which the petitioner was set ex-parte.

3.  Even though notices issued from this Commission were received by respondents 1, 3 and 4, they did not turn up.  Respondents 2, 5 and 6 appeared through counsel.

4.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

5.  From the records it is seen that the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 25.09.2020 and notices were ordered against the opposite parties for appearance to 05.11.2020. On that day opposite parties 1, 4 & 5 entered appearance and it was adjourned to 27.11.2020 for the appearance of other opposite parties.  Thereafter the case was adjourned to 23.12.2020.  On that day it was ordered that opposite parties 2, 3 and 6 continuously absent.  Hence set ex-parte.  The case was adjourned to 21.01.2021 for filing version by opposite parties 1, 4 and 5.  On going through the records it cannot be considered that there is illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum on 23.12.2020 by which the revision petitioner was set ex-parte.  However, considering the fact that the dates mentioned/posted by the District Forum for the appearance of the petitioner/6^th opposite party before the District Forum were during the period when Covid-19 pandemic was in peak, it can be seen that there existed valid ground for the petitioner for their non-appearance before the District Forum.  Considering the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 we consider that the order passed by the District Forum by which the petitioner/6^th opposite party was set ex-parte, is to be set aside and the petitioner is to be allowed to participate in the proceedings and to defend the case by filing version raising contentions and adducing evidence, if any. 

In the result, the revision petition is allowed.  The order passed by the District Forum on 23.12.2020 by which the petitioner/6^th opposite party was set ex-parte, is set aside.  On appearance of the revision petitioner/6^th opposite party before the District Forum opportunity must be given to him to file version within the statutory period and to adduce evidence, if any.  The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible. 

Send a copy of the order to the District Forum, Pathanamthitta. 

Send back the records to the District Forum forthwith. 

T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER