IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 18.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P. NO.14772 OF 2004 AND W.P.M.P.NO.17520 OF 2004 S.Sarojini Ammal .. Petitioner Versus 1.The President of Madurai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Madurai. 2.M.Subramanian 3.The Managing Director M/s.Peerless & Snehapriya Investments India Ltd., No.187-A, East Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001. .. Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take on file the application filed by the petitioner on 15.03.2004 to set aside the exparte order dated 18.05.1994 in C.O.P.No.96 of 1993 and dispose of the same. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nellaiappan For Respondents-1 & 2 : No Appearance For Respondent-3 : M/s.Surana & Surana O R D E R The petitioner herein was an agent of the third respondent. The second respondent is a policy holder of the third respondent. Alleging that the policy amount due to the second respondent has not been paid by the third respondent and the petitioner being the agent is also liable, a compliant was filed in C.O.P.No.96 of 1993 before the first respondent. An ex parte order was passed on 18.05.1994 in C.O.P.No.96 of 1993. Accordingly, the third respondent and the petitioner were directed to repay a sum of Rs.1,632/- to the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Thereafter, the second respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.68 of 2003 before the first respondent to execute the ex parte order dated 18.05.1994. At that stage the petitioner filed an application stating that he was not aware of the ex parte order and he came to know about the same only after the receipt of the notice issued in E.P.No.68 of 2003. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.05.1994. The said application was returned by the first respondent stating that the same is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 3.Even though the second respondent has been served, none appeared for the second respondent and therefore, this Court is constrained to decide the Writ Petition on merits with the available records. 4.A perusal of the order impugned would show that the papers have been returned by the first respondent by making the following observation: "To state the provision in Consumer Protection Act under which the order passed by the Forum on merits can be set aside." 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner made an endorsement stating that the order has not been passed on merits and therefore, the first respondent has got the power to decide the application in view of the judgment pronounced by the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7930 of 1995 dated 28.08.1995. However, the said endorsement was not accepted and the papers have been returned once again with the following endorsement. "Previous direction holds good" 6.Challenging the return of the papers, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 7.The issue involved in the Writ Petition is no longer res integra. The Honourable High Court in MANI, E.K. vs. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MADRAS, ETC. & ANOTHER [1995-1- L.W. 755] after considering the identical issue has held as follows: "16.In view of the above, I am clear that the District Forum and the State Commission have got powers to entertain the application to set aside the ex parte order and decide it on merits. The order passed in Application No.24 of 1992 in O.P.No.173 of 1991 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras and the order passed in unregistered M.P. in SR.No.1913 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.P.347/93 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, are hereby set aside. The District Forum and the State Commission are directed to take the petitions on file and decide them on merits. The District Forum and the State Commission are directed to dispose of the said petitions, expeditiously." 8.The ratio laid down by this Court is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, considering the above said ratio, this Court is of the view that the impugned return made by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The first respondent is directed to number the application filed by the petitioner and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. 9.The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar sri To The President of Madurai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Madurai. 1 cc to Mr.D.Nellaiappan, Advocate, Sr.No.19577 W.P. NO.14772 OF 2004 KGK {CO} TP/6.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/