State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Iifl Securities Limited ... vs Mr. Preeth Gupth on 5 August, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Revision Petition No. RP/207/2024 ( Date of Filing : 20 Jun 2024 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/05/2024 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/112/2023 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. M/S. IIFL SECURITIES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPREESENTATIVE SRI SENTHIL KUMAR OFFICE HEAD QUARTERS AT 7TH FLOOR AEKRUTHI CENTRE POINT MAROL MIDC ANDHERI 9 EAST MUMBAI 400 093 ALSO AT NO 11 GROUND FLOOR ADMAS CHAMBER RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE 560025 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MR. PREETH GUPTH S/O SHRI DHARMENDRA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 49 3 6TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU 560 009 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 Aug 2024 Final Order / Judgement 05.08.2024: ORDER
Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.
01. This Revision Petition is filed under section 47(1)(a)(iii)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to revise the order dated: 25.05.2024 passed by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, in C.C. No.112/2023.
02. The Commission heard Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner. Perused the grounds of revision petition, impugned order and papers enclosed to the petition, thereby found satisfied to dispense with the issuance of RP notice to Respondent.
03. Learned counsel for Revision Petitioner submits that, the Respondent/complainant had participated in the Arbitration proceedings and the sole arbitrator has also passed an award dated: 18.05.2023 holding Respondent/complainant herein is liable to pay Rs.4,36,263.79 and the arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of due till receipt of the award and awarded 12% interest per annum from the date of award till realization. The Respondent/complainant having been aggrieved preferred an Appeal to the proper Forum, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal and only after disposal of the Appeal on 26.04.2023, he had raised a consumer complaint against the Revision Petitioner herein.
04. In the above such circumstances, a short question arisen for us to decide in this Revision Petition would be:
"Whether the impugned order dated: 22.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could be revised for the grounds set out in the Revision Petition?"
05. The District Commission rejected the application filed by OP for seeking permission to file version on the ground, beyond 45 days from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint, version could not be recorded. In our view, in so far the said order is concerned which cannot be revised or reviewed, but facts remained Revision Petitioner/OP having been represented by learned counsel shall have to be permitted to participate in the complaint proceedings, to assist the commission to decide the complaint raised by complainant in accordance with law. In this regard it would be helpful for the Commission to take judicial notice of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the recent past reported in 2024 KLT Online 1912 (SC) in the case between Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Others Vs. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Others, decided on 22.07.2024, wherein held "even if the opposite party failed to file a written statement and in that matter even if verification of written statement it would not be seen that party from participating in the further proceedings without filing any statement and in such circumstances the said party would also be having been right to cross-examine the witness if any of the complainant." In view of this ratio, though revision powers could not be exercised to permit OP/RP to file version, he has to be permitted to submit affidavit along with the documents if any to appreciate the case of the complaint in accordance with law. In other words no bar to receive the arbitraral award and appeal thereon and its consequential effect on the complaint before the consumer commission. In such view of the matter, we proceed to dispose-off this Revision Petition and directed II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban District, to allow opposite party to submit affidavit along with documents/arbitral award and IAs if any and decide the complaint affording opportunity to both parties.
04. Send copy of this order to the District Commission and the parties to the Revision Petition.
Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KNMP* [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER