Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
(Common order)
1) Petitioners/applicants have preferred the present revision petitions challenging the order dated 22/04/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, in consumer complaint No.18/507, CC/18/509 and CC/18/510 whereby the amendment application filed by the petitioner/applicant came to be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/-. Short facts leading to filing of the revision petitions may be stated briefly as under :-
2) Complainant had filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the present petitioner. After filing of the complaint the present petitioner/applicant filed an application for amendment in the written statement. It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that there was delay in filing the amendment application to the written statement and so the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur allowed the application for amendment after imposing cost of Rs.3,000/- by passing the speaking order dated 22/04/2019.
3) Against this impugned order dated 22/04/2019, the present petitioners/applicants have come up in the present revision petitions. After filing of the revision petitions, notice came to be issued to the respondents. Respondents have appeared and have taken Preliminary objection to the tenability of the revision petitions. Respondents have taken plea that there was no provision for filing amendment application to the written statement. Secondly, the respondents have also taken plea that the present petitioner had deliberately delayed the proceedings before the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and so revision petitions are untenable and deserve to be dismissed at the threshold.
4) We have heard Shri Subhash S.Thakur, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for respondents. At the out set, it is submitted by Mr.Thakur, learned advocate for the petitioner that there was absolutely no delay in filing the application for amendment in written statement, but despite this fact the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had imposed cost upon the present applicant. Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the respondents has reiterated the objections which were set out in the application for dismissal of the petition. Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate has also submitted that the revision petition itself is not maintainable in law.
5) Secondly, it is submitted by Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate that the application for amendment can not be allowed if it is filed with the sole purpose to defeat the right accrued infavour of other side or to delay the proceedings. On this aspect he has relied on the case of Purushottam Sanyasi…….V/s…….A.N.Jog, reported in 2005 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal.
6) Further it is submitted by him that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings before the Redresal Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. and also that the Commission has no power to entertain the amendment application. On this aspect Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate has relied upon the case delivered by Hon’ble National Commission and also the case of Ganapathy Nayak……V/s…..Marcelina Rodrigues and others, reported in 2001 (3) CPR 225. We have carefully gone through the judgment on which reliance have been placed by Shri Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for respondents. We are also of the considered view that though the petitioner/applicant had filed an application for amendment to the written statement despite delay, the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had also allowed the same by passing the detailed speaking order regarding imposing cost of Rs.3000/- taking into consideration the aspect of delay. Shri Thakur, learned advocate for the petitioner was unable to point out any error in the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. We therefore find no substance in the Revision Petitions.
7) Shir Mishrikotkar, learned advocate for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner has preferred the revision petitions with a view to delay the proceedings and so heavy cost need to be saddled upon the petitioners. However, we are not inclined to saddle cost upon the petitioner. So we pass the following order :-
// ORDER //
- Revision petition bearing Nos.RP/19/26, RP/19/27 and RP/19/28 are hereby dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of this order be supplied to the party free of cost.
