Dinesh Chaurasiya vs Gopal Singh & Anr

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This revision has been filed under section section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 26.07.2022 of the State Commission in Appeal No.336 of 2022 arising out of the Order dated 24.08.2021 of the District Commission in Complaint No. 07 of 2015.

It appears that the Petitioner / Complainant had filed a complaint against the Respondents / Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service for supplying of defective material. It appears that during the course of the proceedings, the District Commission had directed the Engineer to make spot examination and to submit a report about estimate of damages that were alleged to have been caused because of the said deficiency of service. This Order was passed by the District Commission on 12.04.2017. It further transpires that the complainant thereafter adopted casual attitude and did not pursue the matter in right earnest or with due diligence. The necessary steps to facilitate the compliance of the Order of the District Forum were not taken by the Complainant and no ‘Paravi’ was done on its behalf.  In fact it appears that the Complainant stopped appearing before the District Commission also. In the aforesaid grounds, the District Commission was constrained to pass the following Order dated 24.08.2021 dismissing the Complaint, which reads as thus:

24.08.2021:  Put up document. Called up the case. Both parties absent. Perused documents. From many dates the applicant is not being present. No Paravi  has been done by Complainant against order dated 12.04.2017. In this circumstances complaint is dismissed. Documents be kept in office.

(English translated copy furnished by the petitioner)

The aforesaid Order of the District Commission was appealed in the State Commission which took pains to enter into the facts / merits of the case also.

After going through the detail facts involved in the Appeal,  the State Commission found no merits in the Appeal and was also constrained to observe that the despite sufficient opportunities given, the Complaint remained non-compliant and even in a period of four years the Petitioner / Complainant  failed to do the necessary ‘Paravi’ to facilitate the Order passed by the District Commission with regard to spot examination and as such finding no merits in the Appeal, the State Commission dismissed it by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the Complainant in addition.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner / Complainant and perused the record included inter alia the impugned Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the State Commission as well as the Order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the District Commission.

Learned counsel has not been able to put forth any circumstances and grounds which may justify the non-appearance  by the Complainant before the District Commission or with regard to its failure to take necessary steps to facilitate the compliance of the District Commission’s directions given vide its Order dated 12.04.2017 with regard to spot examination by the engineer. Eventually the learned counsel has tried to emphasize that even if the State Commission was not satisfied about the merits of the case, it should not have taken such a harsh view so as to impose an additional cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the Complainant which according to the counsel was not a balanced exercise of jurisdiction. The learned counsel requests that the said additional cost may be waived off.

This Bench does not see any jurisdictional error in the impugned Order which may persuade it to disturb or change its findings with regard to lack of merits. The only modification which the Bench shall like to make in the impugned Order is with regard to the cost that has been imposed upon the Complainant while dismissing the appeal as the Order in that regard appears to be rather much harsh and appears unkind towards with norms of conscionable justice.

Hence, the impugned Order dated 26.07.2022 stands modified only to the extent that the Petitioner / Complainant shall not be required to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- that has been imposed upon her. No other change in the impugned Order is called for.

The instant Revision Petition so disposed off.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Parties in the Petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.