State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jw Brands Pvt. Ltd vs Suma Khatun W/O. Mufidul Islam on 6 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ASSAM
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/18/RP/3/2025
(Against the Order dated 4th July 2025 in Appeal No. DC/301/CC/5/2025 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Sonitpur)
JW BRANDS PVT. LTD
BUSINESS ADDRESS - NO. 5C-917, 5TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUTKALYAN
NAGAR , BENGALURU URBAN,KARNATAKA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SUMA KHATUN W/o. mufidul islam
PERMANENT ADDRESS - 1122 , NEAR MASJID , BARIKA CHUBURI , SONITPUR,ASSAM.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SMTI MALASRI NANDI , LD. PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. CHANDAN DAS , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. TAPAS KUMAR GHOSH , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MD YASIR AL JUNED BARBHUIYA (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 06/03/2026
ORDER
Heard Mr. Y.A. Borbhuyan, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner. Though notice was served on the opposite party but none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party.
2. The revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 4-7-2025 passed by the learned District Commission, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in C.C. 5/2025.
3. The case of the petitioner is that being the opposite party No. 1 JW Brands Pvt. Ltd. in C.C. 5/2025 they sought for recall of the ex-parte order dated 4-7-2025 on the ground that the delay occurred due to a communication gap between the petitioner's registered office and its legal department. The registered office being located in Bangalore and the legal proceedings being conducted in Sonitpur, Assam and as such, the relevant documents and instructions could not be transmitted in time through courier, causing the delay in filing the written statement.
4. It is further stated in the petition that the absence of the petitioner and the delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate which is beyond the control of the petitioner. Along with the petition, the petitioner also submitted the written statement. It is also stated that the matter may be heard on merit for in the interest of justice.
5. It is also reflected from the petition that unless the order dated 4-7-2025 is recalled and written statement is accepted, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
6. The scan copy of the trial court record from the District Commission, Sonitpur reveals that the complaint case being No. C.C. 5/2025 has been instituted by one Suma Khatun against JW Brands Pvt. Ltd. opposite party No. 1 and accordingly notice was issued to the opposite parties to submit their written statements. As per order dated 13-6-2025 both the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 received notice on 20-5-2025 and 19-05-2025 respectively. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the revision petitioner filed a petition before the District Commission with vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 praying for time to file written statement and the petition was allowed. Next date was fixed on 4-7-2025 for submission of written version.
7. The order dated 4-7-2025 is reproduced as follows:-
" Complainant is present through his ld. Counsel. None of the opposite parties appears today to file W/V. Gone through the last order. The statutory time limit for W/V of opposite parties expires today. The case hence shall proceed ex-parte against the opp. Parties. Case be listed on 1-8-2025 for evidence of complainant."
8. From the order dated 4-7-2025 it reveals that the statutory time limit for filing written statement was over on the same day. Subsequently, no petition was filed by the opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission to vacate the ex-parte order. However, the order dated 5-7-2025 discloses that the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition before the District Commission to vacate the ex-parte order and accordingly the prayer of the opposite party No. 2 was allowed as the written statement was filed within the statutory time limit prescribed under the law.
9. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the delay was caused due to procedural lapses on the part of the officials of the company, however, it appears from the record that the opposite party No. 1 has the knowledge regarding pendency of the case before the District Commission, Sonitpur at Tezpur. The petitioner has also appointed a lawyer to conduct the case on behalf of the opposite party No.1. If there is any instruction on the part of the opposite party No. 1 either to file any petition or to take any steps on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission on 04-07-2025 the matter would have been quite different. The order dated 4-7-2025 shows that no steps were taken on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that it was neither intentional nor deliberate.
10. It is true that a written statement can be accepted on belated stage but with some good reasonable grounds. In the case in hand, the petitioner has failed to show any such satisfactory ground to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 4-7-2025. Under such backdrop, the prayer of the revision petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the proceeding pending before the learned District Commission, Sonitpur at Tezpur in connection with C.C. No. 5/2025 including cross-examination of the witnesses.
11. With the above observation, This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
..................J SMTI MALASRI NANDI LD. PRESIDENT ..................J CHANDAN DAS JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................
TAPAS KUMAR GHOSH MEMBER