State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Carnation Auto India Pvt. Ltd. vs Mrunalini Bendre & Ors on 29 August, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision
Petition No. RP/12/71
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 19/06/2012 in Case No. CC/53/2012 of District Central Mumbai)
1.CARNATION AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.
SHAHNAWAZ BUILDING, CST-144, KAMANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KALE MARG, BAIL BAZAR, KURLA WEST, MUMBAI-400070 ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. MRUNALINI BENDRE OFFICE AT: A-701, GREEN WOOD APARTMENT, NEW LINK ROAD, CHIKUWADI, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI- 400092
2. THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
301, 3RD FLOOR, CITI POINT, ANDHERI TELI GALLI ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 069
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BANDRA (W) MUMBAI
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
ZENITH HOUSE, K.K.MARG MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI 400 034
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER MAHINDRA G-3 MOTORS, PLOT NO.7 RAMACHANDRA LANE KACHPADA, MALAD (W) MUMBAI 400 064
6. PRADEEP DIXIT 301, 3RD FLOOR, CITIES POINT ANDHERI TELI GALLI ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI 400 069 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the revision petitioner ORDER Per Honble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the revision petitioner.
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/06/2012 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/12/53, Mrunalini Bendre v/s. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. & others; by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and whereby forum held that in spite of service opponent no.5 remained absent, hence the complaint to proceed ex-parte against it. Feeling aggrieved thereby this revision petition is filed by original opponent no.5.
In the instant case, after the ex-parte order was passed the revisionist moved on 17/07/2012 to set aside the said order and the said request was turned down by the forum referring to the decision of the Apex Court.
Order to proceed ex-parte as well as the order not entering application to set aside, said order cannot be faulted with as per the existing position of law.
Ld.counsel appearing for the revisionist tried to point out that the forum erred in drawing the presumption of valid service when particularly 30 days notice was not given. We are afraid this is also cannot be a ground to be challenged in this revision. If at all the revisionist wants to take part in the proceedings nobody can prevent him. If he wants to go back to the previous stage for example filing the written version belatedly after putting the appearance, in those circumstances, it is for him to make out a proper case to get admitted belated written version. For this purpose it would not be a case of setting aside previous order but it would be a case to switch over to the provisions of section 13(1)(a) r/w. section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and depending upon making out the case, to entertain the request. For this purpose a useful reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Topline Shoes Ltd. V/s. Corporation Bank 2002(2) CPJ 7 (SC).
Thus, for the reasons stated above, this is not a case where revisional powers of this Commission should be invoked. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Revision petition is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 29th August, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.