State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Saru ... vs Mr. Rajanikanta Panigrahy on 31 March, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK Revision Petition No. RP/20/2022 ( Date of Filing : 28 Mar 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/11/2021 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/15/2021 of District Ganjam) 1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India Saru Branch, At/Po- Saru, Via- Kanchuru, Dist- Ganjam. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mr. Rajanikanta Panigrahy S/o- Dukhishyam Panigrahy, At/Po- Saru, Via- Kanchuru, Dist- Ganjam. 2. Proprietor, M/s. Rashmi Enterprises, Plot No.20, Oscar City, Canal Road, Lane-3, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. 3. Prop. M/s. Aman Impex Company, Plot No. 801, Apul Colony , Nala Road, Rithal Extension, Rohini, New Delhi. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER PRESENT: M/S P.V. Balakrishna & Associates., Advocate for the Petitioner 1 Dated : 31 Mar 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He challenged the order dtd.27.10.2021 where under learned District Commission refused to review the order passed by said Commission observing that the petition for setting aside ex-parte is not maintainable. According to him, learned District Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested U/S-40 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019(herein-after called the Act,2019). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned District Commission can not be applied to this case as the decision was rendered in the wake of Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act,1986). After the new C.P.Act,2019 came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020 learned District Commission has been endowed with the power to review the order passed by them if there is apparent error in the record but same provision was not there under C.P.Act,1986.He admitted that on 04.10.2021 he entered appearance and filed the written version but on 27.09.2021 they have been set ex-parte without any valid reason. Mr.P.V.Balkrishna,learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and the present petition may be allowed to participate in the hearing after filing written version for ends of justice.
2. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order dtd.27.10.2021.
The impugned order is as follows:-
4/10/2021 Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx "Dr. Bijaya Krishna Mohanty, advocate files vaklatnama for OP No.3 alongwith written version after serving copy to the advocate for complainant advocate complainant received the copy with objection and as the Ops had declared exparte prior to appear of the OP No.2. Learned counsel for OP N.2, Prayer to accept the written version and relevant documents. Member(W) is on leave. Put up on 11.10.2021 for hearing the petition of OP No.1 for set-aside the order and filling evidence on affidavit by complainant and hearing. The letter rece3ived from the complainant sent a request letter through Regd.Post that has been received earlier on 27.09.2021 on the grounds stated therein. For consideration. The said letter attached to the case record. "
3. It appears from above order that learned District Commission has not applied proper judicial mind to the Section 40 of the Act,2019 because the petition for review as enshrined in the Act,2019 includes the power to restore the case dismissed for default or setting aside ex-parte order. It is a power endowed under the new Act,2019 for the convenience of the parties if there is apparent error on the record. The legislation has to be understood or interpreted liberally so as to cater the need of the people. Decisions have been relied upon by the learned District Commission. No doubt we respectfully agreed with due regard to the Act,1986.
4. Since, the new Act,2019 has come with necessary provisions, the District Commission ought to have applied the principle of law as embodied in the Act,2019.
5. In view of the above, we hereby set aside the ex-parte impugned order and direct the learned District Commission to consider whether the written version is accepted or not. In the event of acceptance he would allow the petition to proceed with the hearing of the case. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merit of the case.
6. Learned District Commission is instructed to consider the acceptance of written version filed by the present petitioner and dispose of the entire case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 20.04.2022 to take further instruction.
The Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik] MEMBER