AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.07.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 237 of 2016.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘builder co.’). Perused the record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 18.07.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
Vide its Order of 18.07.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution in the absence of the complainant. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:
18.07.2019
Present: None for Complainant.
Mr. Anupam Kumar, Counsel for OP.
C-237/2016
Complainant has not filed evidence by way of affidavit despite giving sufficient opportunities.
Complainant is not appearing from last three consecutive dates i.e. 06.12.2017, 17.05.2018 and 09.01.2019. Even today no one has appeared on behalf of complainant.
It appears that complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint.
In view of the above present complaint stands dismissed for non-appearance and non-prosecution.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has a good case on merit and wants opportunity to present his case before the State Commission. Submission is that the complainant will suffer “irreparable loss” if the complaint is not restored.
Learned counsel for the builder co. submits that the State Commission dismissed the complaint since the complainant was not present to pursue his case. Even otherwise the complainant has no case on merit. However he has no objection to the case being restored. Submission is that even though the State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution but he has no objection to the matter being decided on merit.rightly dismissed the complaint in default. 05.02.2020 before the liant is not decided on merits.
Considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt to be just and conscionable that opportunity be provided to the complainant for getting the matter adjudicated on merit before the State Commission.
This Commission is consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute has as yet to be adjudicated on merit and it does not wish to in any manner color the vision of the forum below.
The Order dated 18.07.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission.
The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case professionally before the State Commission.
The complainant and the builder co. are directed to appear before the State Commission on 13.12.2022. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint, as per the procedure, on merit, in accordance with the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to both sides and to their learned counsel within three days. It is further requested to most immediately send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.