High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 01lo7l202s passed by District consumer Dispies Redressal Commission, Adilabad, in C.C. No.129 of 2024, pending disposal of the present petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):M/S RUBAINA S KHATOON Counsel for the RespondentNO.l: S SURENOER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER /a THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PEIITION No.3247 of 2o25 ORAL ORDER: This civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated O1.O7.2025 passed in C.C.No.129 of 2024 on the file of the District consumer Disputes Iledressal Commission, Adilabad (for short'Consumer Forum')'

2. The brief facts of the case are that the C)onsumer Forum passed order ex parte without giving notice to the petitioner herein who is opposite party, and directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.40,OO,00O/- along with interest at the rate of 9"h P.&., from the date of complaint till realization. Aggreived thereby, this Civil Revision Petition is Preferred.

3. Hear<l Smt Rubaina S.Khatoon, learned counsel for revision pel-itioner, and Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. 2

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is opposite party was not served notice and was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the respondents herein. She contended that grave prejudice is caused to petitioner herein in view of ex parteorder passed by the consumer Forum, directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.4O,00 ,OOO l- towards compensation. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Consumer Forum for fresh disposal.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents submitted two grounds with regard to non maintainability of this revision case. He contended that firstly, the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable against the order passed by the Consumer Forum as the opposite party has to prefer the remedy of filing appeal or review as enshrined under Section 4l of the consumer Protection Act, 2olg. Secondly, he contended that the impugned order was passed only after serving notice to petitioner herein and there was no appearance on beha-lf of .I t -+- 3 petitioner. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition as the same lacks merits'

6.. Having regard to the rival submissions and material onrecord,itisthecontentionoflearnedcounselforthe petitioner that no notice was served upon the petitioner' who is the opposite party, and that the impugned order came to be passed ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing' [n contrast' learned counsel for the respondents specifically contended that the Consumer Forum had duly issued notice to the petitioner and only thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order' and further urgecl that the proper remedy available to the petitionerwasbywayofappealorreviewunderSection4l of the Consumer Protection Act, 2olg' and not by filing the present revision petition' That being the respective contentions, Iearned counser for the petitioner s,bmitted that if the petitioner were to file an appeal' the petitioner would be required to deposit fifty percent of the awarded amountfortheappealtobeentertained'whichwouldcause grave prejudice- l I i I I I I I : i ! I I I I \ 4 7 - on perusal of the record, it is evident that though notice was issued, the same was not received by the petitioner owing to discrepancy in the address. consequently, the order of the consumer Forum was passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the matter was disposed of on merits. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order and rernanding the matter to the consumer Forum for fresh disposal, with a direction to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides. The petitioner is further directed to furnish the correct registered address to the respondents to ensure smooth service of notice.

8. Accordingly, this civil Revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated ol.oz.2o2s passed in c.c-No. L29 of 2024 on the file of the District consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Adilabad, and the matter is remanded back to the consumer Forum with a direction to dispose of the case within a period of six (6) months from / ," 5 the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after afforrling due opportunity of hearing to both sides. The petitioner is further directed to furnish the correct registered address to .the respondents to facilitate smooth service of notice. There shall be no order as to costs- Miscelianeous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY / --'Ad'sGiANf REGISTRAR / ,1\-7 SECTION OFFICER To, \ 1 TheDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission,Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2'oneCCtoSRI.RUBAINASKHATooNAdvocate[oPUC]

3.oneCCtoSRl.SSURENDERREDDYAdvocateIoPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies pk/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER CRP.No.3247 of 2025 '-i (' ,l $:l Lii, z$fi * .-('. tjpz.'i C\.! ALLOWING CRP WITHOUT COSTS