Ill health as a ground for non-filing of version is not acceptable: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE Revision Petition No. RP 44 2018 Date of Filing : 24 Jan 2018 Arisen out of Order Dated 18 12 2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC 120 201. Smt.Farida Banu Aged about 35 years D o Haji Sab Near Government School Lakkavalli Tarikere Tq. Chikkamagalore S o Late Nagendrappa Aged about 35 years Proprietor Veda Engineering Factory Resident of Nanjappa layout Behind Maithri college Shivamogga HON BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER Dated : 04 Oct 2021 Final Order Judgement BEFORE THE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES Basava Bhavan Sri Basaveswara Circle High grounds Bangalore 560001 Smt.Farida Banu . 1 . Aged about 35 years D o Haji Sab Near Government School Lakkavalli Tarikere Tq. Case No. RP 44 2018 1 Versus Vedamurthy . 1 . S o Late Nagendrappa Aged about 35 years Proprietor Veda Engineering Factory Resident of Nanjappa layout Behind Maithri college Shivamogga By M s VK & Co Mr. RAVISHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revision Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition against the Order passed by the District Commission on IA in CC.No.120 2017 filed by them to permit them to file version which was dismissed. Heard the respondent in person Revision Petitioner is absent since long time On going through the Revision Petition certified copy of the Order on IA by the District Commission dt.18.12.2017 we noticed that the complaint had filed a complaint against the Revision Petitioner alleging deficiency in service for death of his child. After service of notice the Revision Petitioner not appeared before the District Commission on 06.10.2017 hence this petitioner placed exparte. Subsequently on 27.10.2017 this Revision Petitioner filed an application u o 9 Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the order of exparte against them. Accordingly after hearing the District Commission allowed the IA and permit them to contest the case and provided time to file version. Inspite of sufficient time provided to file version this Revision Petitioner has not filed version. On 05.12.2017 this petitioner has filed an application to permit them to file version and the said application was rejected as there is no scope for the said IA and sufficient opportunity was provided hence the IA was rejected Aggrieved by the said IA order the Revision Petitioner Opposite Party is before this Infact the District Commission usually issue notice to the Opposite Party after filing the complaint for their appearance and filing version at the first hearing itself whereas in this complaint this Revision Petitioner placed exparte. Subsequently on 27.10.2017 he just filed an application to set aside the exparte order but not filed any version. The District Commission ofcourse have provided sufficient opportunity to file version but the Opposite Party had not filed version well within time and the Revision Petitioner has explained that due to ill health he was 2 not able to inform their counsel to file version hence it is for the bonafide reason. The said ground for non filing of version is not acceptable. The Revision Petitioner has not produced any materials before the District Commission or before this Commission to show that they suffered ill health. We found that the District Commission rightly rejected the application filed by the Opposite Party to permit them to file version. Hence Revision Petition fails. The District Commission is directed to adjudicate the complaint after receiving the affidavit evidence and dispose the matter on merits expeditiously. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed Sd Sd MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar HON BLE MR. Ravishankar HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi 3 

Summary: It was held by the Commission that, using ill-health as an excuse for failing to file version is not a bonafide reason and thus unacceptable. This was observed in the case of Smt. Farida Banu v. Vedamurthy, [Revision Petition No., RP/44/2018], heard before Hon’ble Presiding Member Mr. Ravishankar and Hon’ble Member Mrs. Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi. The brief facts of the dispute are as follows; the complaint had been filed against the Revision Petitioner, asserting deficiency in service for his child’s death. After being served with notice, the Revision Petitioner did not appear before the District Commission on October 6, 2017, so this petition was filed ex parte. Following that, on October 27, 2017, this Revision Petitioner submitted an application under CPC Rule 9 Rule-7 to set aside the exparte order against them. As a result, following the hearing, the District Commission granted the IA and permitted them to challenge the case, as well as offered time to submit a file version. Despite having ample time to file version, this Revision Petitioner has not done so. This petitioner filed a request to allow them to file a version on December 5, 2017, and the application was rejected because there is no scope for the said IA and adequate opportunity was provided.  The Opposite Party did not file a timely version, and the Revision Petitioner explained that due to poor health, he was unable to notify their counsel to file a version, so it is for a legitimate reason. However, the stated reason for non-filing is unacceptable. The Commission held that, “The Revision Petitioner has not produced any materials before the District Commission or before this Commission to show that they suffered ill health. We found that the District Commission rightly rejected the application filed by the Opposite Party to permit them to file version. Hence, Revision Petition fails. The District Commission is directed to adjudicate the complaint after receiving the affidavit evidence and dispose the matter on merits expeditiously. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.”