Karnataka

StateCommission

RP/114/2018

Bharathi Airtel Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venkatesh.S. - Opp.Party(s)

B.J.Mahesh

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No. 114/2018

Bharathi Airtel Ltd. No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 29. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Sri Siddaveer Chakki (By Sri. B.J. Mahesh) V/s	….Revision Petitioner
Venkatesh S. S/o. N. Shivaram, R/at No.545, 11th Cross, 7th Main, Girinagar, 2nd Phase, Bangalore-85 (By Sri. Manohar B.K.)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This revision petition is preferred against the interim order passed on IA filed by this revision petitioner to permit them to file version.  The District Commission without considering their affidavit has rejected their application.  Hence, submits to recall the order passed by the District Commission and permit them to file version as they have good case to urge their defense.

2. On going through the certified copy of the order sheet we noticed that after admission of the complaint District Commission has issued a notice to the OP for appearance and on 03.03.2016 the date of appearance, the OP filed vakalath and sought time to file version, but, the OP failed to file their version within stipulated time of 30 days and extended period of 15 days totally 45 days as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.  Subsequently, the complainant has filed affidavit.  There afterwards, on 26.05.2016 this revision petitioner came up with an application under Section 151 of CPC to permit them to file version, after lapse of 45 days.  The District Commission has rejected the application as there is no provision to receive version after lapse of 45 days, against which revision petitioner is before this Commission.
3. Revision petitioner has not explained proper reasons neither before District Commission nor before this Commission for not filing version well within time as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act.  Sufficient opportunity was provided by the District Commission to file their version.  Inspite of that OP has not utilized the time provided.  As such District Commission rightly rejected the application.  We do not find any valid grounds to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.  The OP shown negligence in filing version within time.  As such revision petition fails, accordingly, dismissed.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*