AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya,Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 22.02.2023 by which right of filing written reply of the petitioner has been closed and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 04.05.2023 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
The District Forum found that notice has been served upon the petitioner on 22.11.2022 but no written reply has been filed within 45 days from the service of the notice as such, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, AIR 2016 SC86, right of filing written reply of the petitioner has been closed and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the finding.
It is not disputed that the notice was served upon the petitioner on 22.11.2022. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was not accompanied with complete copy of the complaint therefore, the provision of Regulation 10 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 has been violated and there was no due service. In such circumstances, right to file written reply was not required to be closed.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. If there is report of service and it is being disputed that the complete copy of the complaint was not accompanied with the notice, then affidavit of the concerned person who received the notice has to be filed. Admittedly, neither before the District Forum nor before the State Commission, any such affidavit controverting the fact that the notice was not accompanied with the complete copy of the complaint. Therefore, there is no violation of the Regulation. The affidavit filed in support of the appeal as well as in revision will not cure the defects. The revision petition is dismissed.