AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed by the appellant Ashit Jain against the order dated 11.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.52/2017.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has not filed the vakalatanama. He undertakes to file the vakalatanama during the course of the day.
The complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed on account of default in appearance and for non-prosecution as the learned counsel representing the appellant did not appear before the State Commission on two consecutive dates. Learned counsel for the appellant states that there was deficiency on the part of the counsel and the party should not suffer for the fault of the counsel.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent states that the complaint has been dismissed on two grounds. First is the dismissal in default and second is for non-prosecution. In fact four opportunities were given to the complainant to file the evidence after the written statement was filed by the OPs. However, the appellant/ complainant did not file the evidence in spite of four opportunities granted by the State Commission and therefore, the matter was dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that it is not correct to say that the complaint was dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution. He emphasised that the impugned order does not indicate whether complaint has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of the original impugned order in Hindi makes it clear that the complaint has been dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution. Perusal of the record also shows that sufficient opportunity was provided to the complainant to file the evidence, however, the same was not filed. Thus, reasonable diligence has not been shown in prosecution of the complaint case. The State Commission in its order has also recorded that the complainant's Advocate was not present on earlier occasion also. Thus, this is not the case where the counsel for the complainant has absented himself only on the date when the impugned order was passed. As the complainant has stated that he has a case on merits, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case before the appropriate forum. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 11.07.2018 of the State Commission is set aside at a cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited with the legal aid account of State Commission within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. The matter is remanded to the State Commission for restoring the complaint and proceeding with the complaint as per the law. The State Commission to proceed with the complaint only after deposit of the cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with legal aid account of the State Commission. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 14.01.2020.