State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chitra Mohan Naik vs Vansant Ramchandra Dixit on 30 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/CB2/27/RP/16/2021
CHITRA MOHAN NAIK
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. KRISHANA NIVAS , NEAR TO MODERN, DURGA NAGAR,
BHOKHARA NAGPUR ,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
VANSANT RAMCHANDRA DIXIT
PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. B. 402 , DREAMNEST, TAGOR NAGAR, DGP NAGAR ROAD ,
NEAR AYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL NASHIK MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.
JAI SHRIRAM URBAN CREADIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NAGPUR
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGING BODY, OFFICE AT GANESH NAGAR ,S.D.
HOSPITAL, NANDANWAN NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ,MAHARASHTRA.
KHEMCHAND S. MEHARKURE
PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO. 101, SHIVAJI NAGAR NAGPUR 24.
MAHARASHTRA,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
NILESH R. PUND (Advocate)
DATED: 30/03/2026
ORDER
(Delivered on 30/03/2026) PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON'BLE MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3 under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for the sake of brevity 'The Act') and thereby challenging the ex-parte order dated 10/02/2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. CC/4/2020, whereby written version/reply filed by the O.P. No.3 was rejected.
2. After filing of the Revision Petition, Notices were served to the Respondents. Respondent No.1 and 3 appeared and filed its say on the said Revision Petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Nilesh Pund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr., learned Counsel for the Respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not accepted the reply of the present applicant and passed an ex-party order and being aggrieved by that the Petitioner prefers the instant revision on the following grounds.
5. Firstly, the order passed by the Hon'ble Consumer Commission Forum is cryptic, not proper and is without considering the factual aspect of the matter and thus deserves to be quashed and set- aside.
6. Secondly, the learned Consumer Forum while passing the said order have not given the sufficient time to present applicant to present before commission and therefore the Judgement deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It is submitted that due to the pandemic the service of the notice to the present applicant was not made properly.
7. It is submitted that the present applicant and her husband both are heart patient. Considering the scenario of the covid-19, pandemic and Lockdown the present applicant could not consult with her counsel or could not present before the Forum. This shows that the said order was passed during pandemic and therefore order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. After receiving the Notice, Respondent No.1 appeared and filed reply. It is submitted that the appellant properly served with the notice following due procedure of law. It is also submitted that the O.P. No.3 was served before Pandemic COVID 19 and after Government decided to work and as per Hon'ble Supreme Court order & guidelines the District Consumer Commission taken action against the appellant original respondent. It is submitted that the Petitioner taking the shelter on the false and fabricated reason which is not actually happened.
9. Respondent No.1 filed Specific reply and contended that the appellant made false, fabricated reason to set-aside ex-parte order. That Petitioner misused the circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic situation. It is submitted that appellant and respondent no. 2 & 3 are the jointly and severally liable for the offence punishable under the sections of IPC & MPID Act before court.
10. Respondent No. 3 received the Notice and filed reply and contended that it is not disputed that, at the time of passing order pandemic situation was going on and all over office/court/tribunal /commission was closed down, even the Apex Court of India passed order and directed the lower court not to passed any adverse order against opposite party. The facts and ground mention by appellant in revision application is admitted by respondent No.3 and prayed to this Commission, to grant permission to file detail reply in complaint case by setting aside order dated 10/02/2021 to the Petitioner as well as respondent no.3, so as the matter be decided on merits and truth comes out before the Forum to decide matter fairly and impartially in the interest of natural justice.
11. We have carefully gone through the petition and the reply filed by Respondent No 1 and 3. It is observed that, the petitioner has not mentioned in his revision petition about the date of service of Notice, that when he has received the Notice along with the complaint compilation.
12. We have also carefully gone through the detail reply filed by Respondent No 1 and 3. Respondent number specifically denied all the submissions made by the petitioner and he further contended that the petitioner is taking the false shelter of pandemic COVID-19. Even the respondent No.1 failed to mention the date of service of Notice to the complainant to count a period of limitation for filing written version.
13. On the other hand Respondent No.3 in its detailed reply contended that it is not disputed that, at the time of passing ex-parte order Dtd. 10/02/2021 pandemic situation was going on and all over Office/Court/Tribunal /Commission was closed down, even the Apex Court of India passed order and directed the lower Court not to pass any adverse order against opposite party.
14. We are of the considered view that as the lower Court has passed the ex- parte order Dtd. 10/02/2021 which is during the pandemic COVID -19. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 stands excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws, in respect of all the judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings in India. The impugned order is passed on 10/02/2021 which squarely fall under the exempted period declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence we are inclined to allow the instant Revision Petition in the interest of Justice. We pass the following order-
//ORDER//
i. The Revision Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned ex-parte order dated 10/02/2021 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/4/2020, is hereby set aside.
iii. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is directed to:
Accept the Written Statement of the Opposite Party, and Proceed with the complaint afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to both parties.
iv. The Opposite Party is directed to file its Written Statement before the District Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted.
v. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Nagpur on 05/05/2026.
vi. The District Commission, Nagpur is requested to conclude the matter expeditiously as early as possible.
vii. The Registry shall send the copy of this Order within a week to the District Commission, Nagpur and the parties concerned. viii. No order as to costs.
..................J KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER