2012(6) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 51


Syndicate Bank & Anr. Vs. Mr. Hasmukh Amritlal Mehta

Revision Petition No.120 of 2011

1st December, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: AKASH ACHARYA

Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.17(1)(b) - Revisional jurisdiction - Invocation of - Revisionist opponent in consumer complaint failed to file written version and was directed to proceed with the complaint without written version - Revision filed to undo the effect of aforesaid event recorded in Roznama - Since conditions u/s.17(1)(b) did not exist, no revisional jurisdiction can be invoked. (Para 4)


Mr. S. R. KHANZODE, Hon'ble Judicial Member :- Heard Adv. Akash Acharya on behalf of the Revisionist/ original Opponents and the Respondent/original Complainant in person.

2. This revision takes an exception to an event of proceeding recorded on 25/8/2011 by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ('the Forum' in short) in the 'Roznama'/Order-Sheet dated 25/8/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2011, Hasmukh Amritlal Mehta Vs. Syndicate Bank and Anr. The factual statement recorded therein is not in dispute. It was recorded on that date that the original Complainant, by its representative, namely - Mr. Bipin Mehta was present. The Opponents Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Revisionist herein were absent. They failed to file written version and, therefore, matter was adjourned to 11/10/2011 for hearing without written version. On the next date i.e. on 11/10/2011 the learned counsel for the Revisionist appeared before the Forum and when he tried to submit a written version, it was not accepted pointing out that on 25/8/2011 itself, since the Revisionist failed to file any written version, it was directed to proceed with the complaint without written version. Therefore, this revision petition is filed to undo the effect of event recorded in the Roznama dated 25/8/2011 and to get accepted the written version.

3. To invoke revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission either of the conditions spelled out in Section-17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) must exist viz. (i) the Forum has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, (iii) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Either of these circumstances does not exist. Under the circumstances, no revisional jurisdiction could be invoked.

4. Before parting with the order, we may observe that on the issue of belatedly filing of the written version, the State Commission has already expressed its opinion in one of the previous orders, which are available on the internet. Written version is called upon from the Opponent once the complaint was admitted, as per provisions of Section-13(1)(a) of the Act. There is a time-bound commitment expected from the Opponent. If the Opponent wants to get admitted the written version belatedly, it is not the case of review of the earlier order/observations to proceed with the case in absence of the written version. It is a case of exercising the jurisdiction as permitted under the Act to consider the request to get admitted the written version, belatedly. Such request if made in writing needs to be considered on its own merit upon hearing both the parties.

For the reasons stated above, we refrain ourselves from exercising revisional jurisdiction. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-


Revision is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.

Ordered accordingly.