AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.64 of 2023 arising out of the Order dated 05.12.2022 of the District Commission in complaint no. 06 of 2018.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the State Commission, the Order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the District Commission and the memo of petition.
For better appreciation of the matter, the impugned Order dated 20.07.2023 may be quoted herein below:
20.07.2023 None for the appellant even when the case is taken up in second round.
Appellant has also not furnished PF for notice to respondents.
There is no request or any application on behalf of appellant to adjourn the matter.
This appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution in view of Rule 11(6) (a) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020.
As is apparent from the impugned Order that the appeal was dismissed in non-prosecution.
Ordinarily this Bench could have issued notice to the respondent(s) and would have proceeded with the matter thereafter. But such a course might have taken a long time as it was not likely that the matter could have been taken up at an early date in the wake of heavy pendency of cases. Such a course could have eventually proved detrimental to the cause of the consumer justice as the matter would have then dragged for an indefinite period of time. As the matter does not involve any complicated questions of law or facts and relates only to the first principles of the natural justice, it would not serve much purpose to procrastinate the hearing waiting for the appearance of the respondents, therefore, the Bench finds it expedient to decide the matter on the basis of record.
Learned counsel has tried to explain the circumstances which resulted in the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner or his legal representative on the date fixed in the State Commission. In this regard, the learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Bench towards the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
Without making any observations regarding merits of the case, lest, the same may cause any prejudice to either side and colour the vision of the fora below, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice that if the further opportunity of hearing is not provided to the petitioner to pursue his case before the State Commission on merits, it is likely to result a miscarriage of justice and would leave the Petitioner remediless. It is, therefore, it deemed to appropriate to set aside the impugned Order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the State Commission and the Instant Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the request to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 15.11.2023.
The principal onus of informing the respondents / opposite parties about this instant Order shall be on the petitioner / complainant, he shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondents / opposite parties do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also direct the petitioner / complainant to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service to the respondents / opposite parties.
In case the respondents / opposite parities still feel to have objections to the instant Order, they may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that they will raise their objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondents may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise his objections.
If the respondents / opposite parties move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be subject to the Orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the respondents do not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
The petitioner / complainant is advised to peruse his appeal in the State Commission in right earnest. It may be observed that in case on the date fixed for hearing or on any future date, the petitioner / complainant fails to appear before the State Commission personally or through his counsel or authorized representative, the State Commission may proceed with the matter as it may deem fit in its wisdom in accordance with law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.