State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development ... vs Mr.Jagan Hari Krishna on 25 January, 2024
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RP.NO. 39 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CC.NO.628/2022, DISTRICT CONSUMER
COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between :
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority,
Rep. by its Officer on Special Duty, BPP HMDA,
Swamajayanti Complex, S.R.Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
....Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2
And:
1.Mr.Jagan Hari Krishna, S/o Jagana Rami Naidu, Age about : 35 years, Occ.: Not known, R/o H.No.6-42/D, Gayathri Nagar, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., T.S. 500 038, Ph.No.9976888990 .........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. NTR Memorial Vehicle Paid Parking, NTR Memorial Gardens, Near to Secretariat, Rep. by its Authorised Person, Javvaji Srinivasa Rao, Hyderabad-500 022.
........Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 :
M/s.P.H.Pannaga Sai Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant : M/s. Praveen Puram Counsel for Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 : Called absent. .
QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER- JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ****** Order: (Per HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER- JUDICIAL MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
1. The Revision petition is filed u/s 47 (1) (a) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by the order of the ex-parte made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy.2
2. The brief averments of the revision petition are that the summons issued on the Revision Petitioner/opposite party No.2 was served on 02.02.2023 itself, incidentally, it is the date fixed for the appearance of petitioner before the Commission and due to its failure to appear was set ex-parte; that a letter was addressed to the Commission below on 03.02.2023 informing about the date of service of summons and it shows the bonafides of the Revision Petitioner; hence the revision to set aside the order of the ex-parte.
3. Now the point for determination is whether the impugned order made on 02.02.2023 is sustainable under law?
4. Nobody is examined and now documents are marked in the Revision. The counsel for respondent not proposed the counter but orally opposed the version of the Revision Petitioner.
5. Point :- It is to be observed that as per section 38(3) (a) of the C.P.Act 2019, the opposite party No.2 has to be provided with time of 30 days for filing written version after service of summons and another 15 days can be granted to file the written version by the Commission at its discretion. It means exclusively it is within the powers of the District Commission to extend 15 days period after completion of first 30 days. It is within its discretion. In other words granting 30 days' time to file the written version after service of summons is mandatory.
6. In the case on hand, the summons were issued on the opposite party No.2 and it was served as per the postal track report on 25.01.2023, when the date of appearance was fixed on 02.02.2023. However, the opposite party No.2 was set ex-parte on 02.02.2023 itself for his failure to appear. We are of the emphatic view that irrespective of presence or absence of the opposite party No.2 on the day fixed for his presence, the period of 30 days shall be calculated from the date of service of summons to make the order of ex-parte. As the same is not followed in this case, the impugned order is not sustainable under law; as such it is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed without costs by setting aside the order of ex-parte dated 02.02.2023. The Revision 3 Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 is hereby directed to appear before the Commission below and to file written version simultaneously, on or before 26.02.2024; thereupon the Commission below shall proceed with the case as per law.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Date: 25.01.2024
*AD