(Passed on 11/8/2017)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. This revision petition is filed by the original  opposite party ( for short OP)  No. 2 which is the producer of the seeds feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28/12/2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha by which the complaint bearing No. 94/2016 has been proceeded exparte against the original OP No.2. Moreover, another  order dated 31/01/2017 passed by the same District Forum in the same complaint is challenged in this revision petition by which the application made by OP No. 2 to the District Forum Wardha came to be rejected by which time was sought for filing reply to the complaint.
2. It is seen that notices issued by this Commission to the original complainant and original OP No. 1 who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in this revision petition were returned unserved with postal endorsement  as “Does not reside on the given address”. Therefore the petitioner with the permission of this Commission,  published notices in local newspaper against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and produced one of the issue of the said local newspaper. We have proceeded exparte against the respondents  as they remained absent despite service of said notices.
3. We heard advocate Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande who appeared for the petitioner and perused the record of the petition. Advocate Mrs. Anuradha Deshpande submitted that though the representative of petitioner/original OP No. 2 had appeared before the District Consumer Forum Wardha on 8/12/2016 and sought time for filing reply, the Forum passed exparte order against the OP No. 2/petitioner and that too before expiry of the period of statutory period 30 days. She further submitted that as the petitioner had already appeared before the District Consumer Forum, Wardha, there was no question of proceeding exparte against it. The learned advocate of the petitioner also submitted that the office of the petitioner is situated at Jalna  and therefore some time was required for obtaining instructions from that office and then for filing reply. But the District Consumer Forum did not consider the same and rejected the application of the petitioner. She therefore requested that both the impugned orders may be set aside and reply of the petitioner may be accepted on record of the complaint.
4. We find that as original OP No. 2/petitioner had already appeared before the District Consumer Forum, Wardha on 8/12/2016 through its representative, the Forum erred in proceeding exparte against the original Op No. 1/petitioner by passing order on 28/12/2016.  Moreover, we find that the opportunity needs to be given  to the petitioner/OP No. 1 file  reply before the District Forum subject to payment of reasonable cost. Hence  revision petition is allowed as under.

ORDER

1. The impugned orders dated 28/12/2016 and 31/01/2017 passed in consumer complaint No. 94/2016 by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha against OP No. 2/petitioner herein are hereby set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the original OP No. 2/petitioner herein to the original complainant/respondent No. 1 herein. The said cost be either paid directly to the respondent No. 1 herein  by sending Demand Draft (DD) of Rs. 5,000/- to him by Registered Post A.D. or the said amount be deposited with the District Consumer Forum Wardha to be paid to the respondent No. 1 herein on or before 11/9/2017. The Forum on verification of the payment or  deposit of cost as above, shall accept the reply of original OP No. 2/petitioner on record on or before 11/9/2017
2. Copy of said order be furnished to both  parties free of costs and its one copy be forwarded to District Consumer Forum, Wardha for information.