Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2024) 04 NCDRC CK 0078

Anup Karnani vs Sunbeam C.H.S. Ltd.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 19 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition No. 451 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 327 words

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

1.

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 07.10.2021, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.A/17/1, wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party was dismissed for want of prosecution.

2.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint filed before the learned District Forum. “Anup Karnani” is referred to as “the Petitioner/OP” and “Sunbeam C.H.S. Ltd.” is referred to as the Respondent/Complainant.

3.

Heard the learned Counsels for the Parties on the limited question of restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed by the learned State Commission on 07.10.2021 for want of prosecution.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP submitted that due to Covid-19, the Petitioner/OP did not pursue the Appeal before the State Commission. He sought to restoration of the Appeal and remanding the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the Appeal on merits. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced and the interest of justice, the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. A/17/1 is set aside and the Appeal is restored to its original number. Consequently, the present Revision Petition is allowed.

7.

The learned State Commission is requested to decide the Appeal on merits.

8.

All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

9.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 30.05.2024.