Consumer Dispute Resolution: Correcting Procedural Errors in Ex-Parte Cases.


27 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

This case of RBL Bank Ltd. Chandigarh VS Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Joson & Ors. involves a petitioner (OP) challenging an order from the State Commission, UT Chandigarh, which dismissed their appeal against an ex-parte order issued by the District Commission. The District Commission had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner for failing to appear on the scheduled date, despite receiving notice.

The petitioner argued that they should have been allowed to file their written statement within the statutory period of 30 days (extendable to 45 days) from the notice receipt date, regardless of their absence on the hearing date. The court noted that the District Commission's own order acknowledged the possibility of delays in receiving complete complaint copies, thus implying a broader timeline.


 

 

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., which clarifies the calculation of the 30-day period from the receipt of notice and complaint, the court determined that the petitioner's absence on the specific hearing date did not negate their statutory right to file a written statement within the prescribed timeframe.

Consequently, the court set aside the State Commission's order and directed the District Commission to reconsider the petitioner's request for accepting their written statement, provided it is filed within 30 days of the current order. The District Commission's ex-parte order was also overturned, contingent on the timely filing of the written statement.


Section 38, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019  

Section 41, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - 2019

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019