(Delivered on 29/11/2019)
PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. Petitioner- Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited has preferred the present petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22/02/2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Bhandara, by which the application filed by the petitioner /O.P. for grant of permission to file evidence affidavit on record came to be rejected.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition go to show that the respondent /complainant Mr. Sanjay Chaure filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 contending that the present petitioner /O.P. had indulged in deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. The petitioner has taken a plea that after receiving notice, the petitioner filed its written statement on 14/06/2017 and thereafter the matter was listed for evidence of the complainant on 05/07/2017 and again for rejoinder of the complainant on 20/09/2017, 01/11/2017, 08/12/2017, 06/01/2018, 22/02/2018, 20/04/2018, 11/06/2018, 27/06/2018 and 19/07/2018. The complainant filed his evidence affidavit on 19/07/2018. The petitioner has taken a plea that he was unable to file evidence affidavit on record under the bonafide impression that there was no regular sitting of the District Consumer Forum, Bhandara and therefore did not file the evidence affidavit on record within the stipulated time. The petitioner subsequently came to know that the learned District Consumer Forum had passed an order on 27/11/2018 proceeding without evidence affidavit on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore on next date i.e. 18/12/2018 moved an application for permission to the O.P. to file evidence affidavit on record but same came to be rejected in erroneous manner. Against this impugned order 27/11/2018 the present petitioner has come up in revision petition.
3. We have heard, Mr. Patait, learned advocate for the petitioner. However, the learned advocate for the respondent remained absent and therefore, we have gone through the record. We have also gone through the contents of the application dated 18/12/2018 as well as the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. If we go through the application also the petitioner has taken a plea in the application that due to inadvertence the petitioner could not file his evidence affidavit on record, but it is clear from the record that the petitioner had filed written statement on 14/06/2017 but thereafter did not file the evidence affidavit which was absolutely necessary in spite of the fact that the matter was listed on several dates i.e. on 01/11/2017, 08/12/2017, 06/01/2018, 22/02/2018, 20/04/2018, 11/06/2018, 27/06/208 and 19/07/2018. It was only when the impugned order came to be passed on 27/11/2018 that the petitioner filed present application on 18/12/2018 after gap of more than one year in filing written statement. It is therefore, clear that there was extreme delay on the part of the petitioner in filing evidence affidavit on record. Be that as it may the petitioner has to be granted opportunity to take part in proceeding and to place the evidence on record. We therefore, feel that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated 27/11/2018 is set aside and petitioner is permitted to file evidence affidavit on record after imposing cost and after giving direction to the learned District Consumer Forum to expedite the matter. We therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Revision petition is hereby allowed.
ii. Order dated 27/11/2018 is set aside subject to cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid to the respondent within one week .
iii. Petitioner is also directed to file his evidence affidavit on record within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
iv. The learned District Consumer Forum is directed to give due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to dispose of the matter as early as possible.
