HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. Challenge is to the order No. 25 dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/35/2020 thereby the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against the revisionists / opposite parties on 06.02.2024.

2. The respondent / complainant herein instituted a complaint case being No. CC/35/2020 against the revisionists.

3. The notice was duly served upon the revisionists / opposite parties and on 11.10.2023 the revisionists / opposite parties appeared by filing Vakalatnama before the Learned District Commission. The matter was adjourned and the revisionists / opposite parties were directed to file written version on 21.11.2023. On 21.11.2023 the revisionists / opposite parties also prayed for time for filing written version and that prayer was considered and allowed. The Learned District Commission was pleased to fix the date on 28.11.2023 for filing written version. On 28.11.2023 the opposite parties did not turn up before the District Commission and no written version was filed. As such, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing and for filing evidence on affidavit by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order the revisionists have preferred this revision application.

5. The Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionists has urged that on 28.11.2023 the revisionists / opposite parties due to their personal inconvenience failed to appear before the Learned District Commission below and  prayed for further date for filing written version. The Learned District Commission was pleased to pass an order to proceed the case ex parte against the opposite parties vide impugned order dated 28.11.2023.

6. He has further urged that the impugned order should be set aside, otherwise, the opposite parties will be highly prejudiced.

7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the opposite parties were served with a notice prior to 11.10.2023 and on 11.10.2023 the opposite parties appeared by filing Vakalatnama. On 11.10.2023 the matter was adjourned and the opposite parties were directed to file written version on 21.11.2023. But on that date the revisionists / opposite parties also prayed for an adjournment for filing written version. That prayer was considered and allowed. The Learned District Commission below was pleased to fix another date on 28.11.2023 to file the written version by the revisionists / opposite parties. On 28.11.2023 the opposite parties did not turn up before the Commission and no written version was filed on behalf of them. Since the statutory period of 45 days has already been expired, the Learned Commission below was pleased to fix the case for ex parte hearing.

8. On the issue of filing written version, law is very categorical.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with Civil Appeal No.936 of 2013 decided on 05.02.2013 has passed the order wherein earlier judgment of Supreme Court passed in connection with the case namely Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another was relied and it was held that :-

“The District Forum and State Commission have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which are not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.”

10. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (5) SCC 757 has pronounced that :-

“The limitation period under section 13(2) 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not be exercised beyond the statutory prescribed period of 45 days.”

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manisha Bhargava (petition for Special Leave) to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021, decided on 21.02.2021 observed as follows :-

“In any case, in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Merchant (supra) and the subsequent authoritative decision of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction and / or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Ld. National Commission.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Special Leave Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.” 

12. For the foregoing discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the order passed by the Learned District Commission below is justified. The revisionists failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in the appellate jurisdiction.

13. The revisional application is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs.

14. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.

15. The Learned District Commission is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order without granting any adjournments.

16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Commission below at once.