State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director, M/S Tipco Energy ... vs Prashanth Elamanchili on 23 March, 2022
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(under Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 500 004 -
RP No.15/2022 AGAINST CC NO.466 OF 2021
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT cOMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Managing Director,
M/s Tipco Energy Devices Ltd.,
105/307, Mahaveer Complex,
R.P. Road, Secunderabad 500 -
001.
.Revision Petitioner/Opposite party
And
Prashanth Elamanchili,
S/o Narasimha Rao Elamanchili,
R/o Villa No.22, Private-XXVII1,
Sy.No.86, Kokapet,
Hyderabad - 500 075.
.Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Review Petitioner: Sri S.Sravan Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent
ch-Gansh
cORAM:
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan
Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order:
*** This revision petition is filed by Opposite party in CC No.466 of the 2021 on the file of District Commission-1, Hyderabad aggrieved by the orders dated 13.12.2021 by and under which the District Commission-1, Hyderabad refused to accept the written version on the premise that the statutory period has already been expired, the same cannot be extended and proceeded with the case by setting the Opposite party ex parte.
2) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and also the Respondent/ Complainant.
3) The impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the District Commission-I, Hyderabad is under challenge. The said order reads as under has already written version Since statutory date for filing has no power to extend Commission been expired, this uwritten version of the Opposite o n periodthefor filing is set ex parte. For filing party. Hence, Opposite party 07.01.2022.
evdence affidavit of the Complainant, cali on Revision
4) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the the Hon ble reauoner/Opposite party that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in S.M.W.P. No.3 of 2020, the right to file the witte version cannot be forfeited on 13.12.2021 since the Supreme Court has enlarged the period for doing all such activities till 28.02.2022.
5) We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner. On 13.12.2021 i.e., the date on which the right to file the written version of the Opposite party was forfeited falls within the period covered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 which directs that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for all purposes. Therefore, the District Forum ought not to have set the Revision Petitioner ex parte. Therefore, the order impugned sufiers irom material irregularity warranting interference and hence the revision is liable to be allowed.
6) In the result, the revision
petition is allowed setting aside the
orders dated 13.12.2021 of the District Commission-I, Hyderabad. The
Revision Petitioner/Opposite party should file its appearance and also
the written version on 08.04.2022 i.e., the date on which the consumer
complaint is said to be posted. The revision is
accordingly allowed and
the parties to bear their own costs.