State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Tahsildar vs V Narasimma Moorthy on 11 September, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3. Present: Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT Revision Petition No.103 of 2023 (Against the Order dated 02.06.2023 passed in C.C. No.17/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai) Orders, dated:11.09.2023 The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai - 606 701. ... Revision Petitioner/ Opposite party. - Versus - V. Narasimma Moorthy, S/o. Mr. Vediayappan, No.316, Kalpayir Kanji Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannmalai District. ... Respondent /Complainant. For Revision Petitioner/ Opposite party : M/s. K. Kumaran For Respondent / Complainant : Party in person This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:- O R D E R
R.Subbiah, J. - President. (Open Court) This Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai in C.C. No.17/2023, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days and consequently, adjourned the case to 09.06.2023 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.
2. Both present.
3. Heard both parties.
4. The Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party was set exparte for non-filing of written version. Hence, the present Revision Petition. When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party submitted that on receipt of summons from the District Commission, the Revision Petitioner had sent a letter to the Government Pleader requesting him to appear in the said case. In the mean time, the Revision Petitioner had taken all the efforts to collect the details which has to be furnished to the Government Pleader for preparing version on behalf of the opposite party and to file the same before the District Commission. To the shock, the letter sent by the Revision Petitioner was lost in transit. Hence, the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party was not able to file written version within 45 days and as a result of which, he was set exparte on 02.06.2023. Hence, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:02.06.2023 in order to give a chance to the opposite party to contest the case on merits. When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the opposite party pending will further delay the matter. Irrespective of the reason assigned by the opposite party for non-filing of written version, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this Revision Petition could be allowed by setting aside the exparte order passed by the District Commission so that, the Revision Petitioner / opposite party will have a chance to contest the case on merits.
5. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 02.06.2023 passed in C.C. No.17/2023 by the DCDRC, Tirvannamalai in setting the Revision Petitioner / opposite party exparte is set aside, and the opposite party is directed to file their Vakalath, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side in C.C. No.17/2023 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.
R. SUBBIAH, J.
PRESIDENT KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2023.