AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 24.06.2019 passed in complaint no. 67 of 2018 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh.
Appellant in person is present. However, none appeared for the respondent even on repeated calls. The record shows that none has ever appeared on behalf of the respondent in this matter, even though the office report dated 23.05.2022 shows service of the notice.
The appeal is pending since 2019. Considering that the ideal normative period for deciding an appeal as provided in section 19A of the Act 1986 (corresponding section 52 of the Act 2019) is 90 days from the date of its admission, the bench deems it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the appellant present in person and not to delay it any further, much more so, in view of the nature of the impugned order and its narrow canvas as the matter does not involve any complicated questions of law or fact and relates only to first principles of natural justice as the complaint appears to have been dismissed in default.
Heard the appellant present in person. Perused the material on record, including the impugned Order dated 24.06.2019 of the State Commission, the grounds of the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay.
The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 72 days.
However, in the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in order to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation the delay is condoned.
Vide its Order of 24.06.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint for non prosecution. The said Order is reproduced below for ready reference:
“None for complainant.
The defect as pointed out by the office has also not been removed, inspite of issuance of service post card.
The complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution and for non-removal of defect.”
The consumer complaint contains elaborate details which do not need to be reproduced at this stage. It transpires that on the date fixed in the State Commission the complainant did not appear which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint in default.
This Commission at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable and sufficient opportunity be further provided to the complainant for adjudication of its complaint on merits as denying the same will leave him remediless.
As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case the Order dated 24.06.2019 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 its case professionally before the State Commission
The matter is remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the matter on its merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.08.2023.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this appeal within three days. The Registry is also requested to forthwith communicate 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.