The present Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.01.2019, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( now Commission), Imphal, passed in Complaint Case No.9 of 2016 for ex-parte proceedings against the Opp. Parties No.2 and 3, i.e., the present Petitioners and also not allowing them to cross examine the C.W./P.W. No.1.

2.    The present Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Opp. Parties No. 2 and 3 in Complaint Case No. 9 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission), Imphal. The Respondent No.1, is the Complainant and the Proforma Respondent is the Opp. Party No.1, in the said Complaint Case.

3.    The facts of the case of the Complaint Case No. 9 of 2016, before the District Forum is that, on 11.01.2019, the Complainant-in-person along with her conducting counsel appearing for giving her statement. The ld.Counsel of the Opp. Party No.1 (Proforma Respondent), Mr. Churchil Ningthoujam also appeared and submitted that no cross examination of the P.W./C.W No.1,  will be conducted from his side. However, neither the Opp. Parties No. 2 and 3 (Petitioners No. 1 and 2), nor their counsel were present without assigning any reason till 3 p.m., of the said day. Accordingly, the complaint case was proceeded ex-parte against the said Opp. Parties No.2 and 3 (Petitioners No.1 and 2), and posted to 31.10.2019 for examination of other C.Ws./P.Ws.

4.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the said District Forum , the Petitioner preferred the present revision petition for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2019, for ex-parte proceedings against them along with a prayer for allowing them to cross-examine the P.W./C.W. No.1, on the following amongst other grounds:-

A.  The Ld. District Forum should not have hastily ordered to proceed Complaint Case No.9 of 2016 ex-parte against the Petitioners on a singular default on their part or their counsel.

B.  The Ld. District Forum leniently granted adjournment or    postponed the cross examination of P.W. No.1 due to her non appearance on 4 (four) consecutive dates and hence the order of ex-parte proceeding against the petitioners was biased and unequal treatment.

C.  The Ld. District Forum could have considered the case of the Petitioners by affording a chance to cross examine the P.W. No.1.

D.  The Court below passed the impugned order unreasonably, arbitrarily and against the rule of justice.

5.    The Petitioners submitted their joint written argument on 04.04.2019, stating inter-alia the following reasons/points:-

     i.   ex-parte proceedings against the Petitioners on a singular  default on their part are not reasonable.

     ii.   The District Forum leniently granted adjournments or postponed the cross-examination of  P.W. No.1, due to her non- appearance on 4 (four) occasions, in favour of the Complainant.

     iii   The District Forum could have considered the case of the Petitioners by giving strict direction or otherwise by affording a chance/last chance.

     iv   The District Forum acted unreasonably, capriciously, arbitrarily or perversely and not according to rules and justice.

   And, the Petitioners prayed for setting aside the impugned Order and to allow them to cross-examine the P.W. No.1

6.      The Respondent No.1, filed her written argument on 05.04.2019 stating inter alia of the following reasons/points:-

           i.  The petitioners were deliberately adjourning the cross-  examination of the P. W. No.1.

           ii.  If the prayer of the Petitioners is allowed there will be delay in disposal of the Complaint Case.

           iii. The Petitioners can join at the ‘present’ stage of the proceeding of the said Complaint Case.

7.   The Proforma Respondent filed the written argument on 05.04.2019 stating inter alia the following reasons/points:-

i)     The counsel of the Proforma Respondent submitted that further cross examination on its part may be closed and cross examination by other Respondents may continue

ii)    The Ld. Forum gave ample time by waiting till 3 p.m., for the Petitioners and only thereafter the case was proceeded ex-parte against them.

8.   The present Revision Petition was filed on 05.03.2019. The Petitioners filed written argument on 04.04.2019. The Respondent No.1 and Proforma Respondent filed their respective written arguments on 05.04.2019. However, there is delay of some months in disposing the present Revision Petition due to lock-down imposed by the State and Central Governments in connection with Covid-19 Pandemic and also non-appointment of the President of the Commission. And, on the issuance of the Order dated 17.06.2022, by the Government of Manipur appointing the senior most Member of the Commission to officiate as President, the Commission started hearing of the cases.

9.             ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

(A)     Whether the ex-parte order/proceeding against the Petitioners may/can be set aside?

(B)     Whether the Petitioners are entitled to cross examine the P.W./C.W.No.1?

10.           The Petitioners cited the following case laws in favour of their contention:-

                  (i)      Madras High Court Case No. CPR No. 3935 of 2008, date of decision 04.11.2016 (B. Nagaraj –versus- Green    Earth Bio Technologies Ltd.)

        (ii)      Judgment and Order of the State Commission Manipur dated 15.04.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 6 of 2016 (Prof. Dr. N. Nabakishore Singh –Versus- Shri Ahanthem Sanatomba Singh and Others).

11.           After perusing the records of the case before the District Forum (Commission), the present Revision Petition, written arguments, case laws cited and after hearing the counsel of the Petitioner, in our considered views the present Revision Petition can be disposed of under the following terms and conditions:-

Issue No. (A):- Whether ex-parte order/proceeding against the Petitioners may/can be set aside?

 As per the said Judgment and Order of the Madras High Court passed in Court Case No. CPR No.3935 of 2008, date of decision 04.11.2016 (B. Nagaraj –Versus- Green Earth Bio Technologies Ltd.), i.e., “Therefore, it is made clear that when the Consumer Protection Forum has got the power to decide the ex-parte under Rule 8(8) and 8(9) of the Rules, it is automatically implies that it has got power to set aside an ex-parte Order.”; the impugned ex-parte order can be set aside. In our considered view an ex-parte order/proceeding against the Petitioners can be set aside for finding out and determining the actual facts and circumstances of the claims to reach an appropriate decision, for the ends of justice.

Issue No. (B):- Whether the Petitioners are entitled to cross examine the P.W./C.W. No.1?

This Commission vide the Judgment and Order of dated 15.04.2016 passed in First Appeal No.6 of 2016(Prof. Dr.N.NabakishoreSingh –Versus- Shri Ahanthem Sanantomba Singh and Others); held that, “In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also considering the facts that parties in 

the case should be given fair opportunity to contest by allowing to put up their respective defense, the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 is hereby set aside. We may add further that if any witness has already been examined ex-parte after the impugned order dated 23.02.2016, an opportunity should be given to the appellant or any of the willing respondents to cross examine such witness(s) and to ensure compliance of this order, District Forum may pass appropriate order.”  We are also of the view that, the Petitioners shall be given opportunity to cross examine the P.W./C.W. No.1, to help in finding out the actual facts in dispute.

12.    Considering the facts of the case/dispute and the laws laid down by this Commission and other Courts as mentioned above we are of the opinion that, the Petitioners shall be given opportunity to cross–examine the P.W./C.W. No.1, as examination of a witness includes examination-in-chief then cross–examination and then re-examination if required.

13.     For the reasons given above, the Revision Petition is allowed and set aside the impugned order 11.01.2019 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Commission), in Complaint Case No. 9 of 2016. The Ld. District Commission Imphal, shall allow the petitioners to cross examine the P.W./C.W. No.1.

14.    This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

15.     Pronounce in the open Court.

16.   The Registry is directed to return all the records of Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2016, of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Commission) Imphal, along with a copy of this Judgment.

17.     A copy of the Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.      File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.