Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S Gayathri Builders vs Deeti Chandramouli on 11 May, 2022

       Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
           (under Consumer Protection Act, 2019) of Telangana,
           Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad, Hyderabad - 500 004


             RP No.43/2021 AGAINST CC NO.39 OF 2020
        ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR
 Between
 M/s Gayathri Builders,
 Represented by authorised signatory,
 V.Rajashekar Reddy, Managing partner,
 Office at H.No.2-10-277, Jyothi Nagar,
 Karimnagar, R/o # 104,
 Sai Mithra Residency, Plot No.36,
 Sanjeev Cooperative Housing Society,
 Mahendra Hills Road,
 East Marredpally, Secunderabad.
                                             .Petitioner/Opposite party No.2
        And

 1)     Deeti Chandramouli S/o Pocham,
        aged 42 years, Occ: Employee,
        R/o Q.No.MC 5/N, CMPF Complex,
        1B Colony, Godavarikhani,
        Karimnagar district.

 2)
                                                 .Respondent/Complainant
       Enugula Narayana Reddy
       S/o Malla Reddy, H.No.4-69/61/1,
       Road No. 1,
                   Vidyaranyapuri,
       Theegalaguttapally village,
       Karimnagar town and
       District- 505 001.
                                           ...Respondent/Opposite party No.1
 Counsel for Review Petitioner :      Sri Porandla Sridhar
Counsel for the Respondents           Sri B.Avinash-R1
                                      R2-Served with notice

cORAM
            Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal             President
                                     and
                Smt Meena Ramanathan                  Member

Wednesday, the Eleventh day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order *** This revision petition is filed by the Opposite party No.2 in CC No.39/2020 on the file of District Commission, Karimnagar aggrieved by the orders dated 20.09.2021 by and under which the District Commission, Karimnagar set the Opposite party No.2 ex parte.

2) Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite party No.2.

3) The grievance of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite party No.2 is that they were required to file the written version and make their appearance on 20.09.2021 and since they failed to do so, the learned District Commission was pleased to set them ex parte. It is submitted that due to pandemic, they could not make their appearance and file the written version. Even otherwise, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020, the time for filing written versions, etc., stood extended till 28.02.2022. The learned counsel submits that the District Commission ought not to have passed the impugned order in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4) We have perused the material on record and we are satisfied that the order that is impugned cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above and the interest of justice demand that an opportunity be afforded to the Revision Petitioner to file its written version and put-forth their defence. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5) In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2021 of the District Commission, Karimnagar is set aside. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite party No.2 is directed to appear before the District Commission, Karimnagar on the next date of hearing i.e., 26.05.2022 without fail and file written version without seeking any adjournment which the District Commission should take on record and oceed further with enquiry in accordance with law.

6) In the result, the revision petition is allowed accordingly and the parties to bear their own costs.