AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel present. Perused the material on record.
This appeal has been professed by the appellant - opposite party no. 1 to challenge an interim Order dated 31.08.2017 of the State Commission.
In reference to the previous Order dated 17.05.2019, the learned counsel for the appellant - opposite party no.1 submits that the cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has not been paid till date.
The appellant - opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay the said cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant by way of 'payee's a/c only' bank draft within four weeks from today, without fail.
If the said cost is, now, not paid within the stipulated time, as directed afore, the appeal shall be treated as failed, that is, treated as dismissed on limitation, and the directions being given hereinafter shall become infructuous.
In respect of the subject-matter of the appeal, we may first reproduce the impugned interim Order of the State Commission:
Dated: 31 Aug 2017
Final Order / Judgement
ORDER NO. 23
The Misc. Application bearing No. MA/686/2017 is taken up for passing order.
The aforesaid Misc. Application has been filed by the OP Nos., 1, 4, 5 & 6 with prayer for accepting the questionnaires by the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 at the present stage fixed for filing evidence on affidavit by the OPs.
The Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Applicants submits that the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 could not file questionnaires on 26.4.2019 when the opportunity for filing questionnaires was allowed to the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 by Order No. 15 dated 16.2.2016 and Order No. 16 dated 26.4.2016 for inconvenience on behalf of the Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP Nos. 1,4,5 & 6 earlier.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that thereafter a new advocate was appointed by the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 and the newly appointed advocate is filing the questionnaires at present on behalf of the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 along with the Misc. Application in question and hence, the questionnaires now filed should be accepted in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that as the case has reached the stage of evidence by the OPs and Order No. 17 dated 12.7.2016 by which the stage of replies to the questionnaires by the OPs has reached the finality, so the same having not been challenged before the higher forum this Commission cannot go back to the past stage, which would amount to recalling of its own order which is not permitted by the provisions of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, and hence, the instant Misc. Application should be dismissed.
It is evident from the record that the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 were allowed opportunity by Order No. 15 dated 16.12.2016 and Order No. 16 dated 26.4.2016 to file questionnaires by the OPs, but the OP Nos. 1,4,5 & 6 did not file questionnaires. The OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 did not file questionnaires. The OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 having thus failed to file questionnaires the case was fixed at the next stage for filing replies by the Complainant to file questionnaires filed by the other OPs, and after filing replies by the Complainant the case was fixed at the next stage of evidence by the OPs by Order No. 20 dated 17.5.2017.
The foregoing discussion indicates that the OP Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 were allowed sufficient opportunity in the interest of justice to file questionnaires, but still the OP Nos. 1,4,5 & 6 did not file questionnaires. Further, going back to the questionnaire stage from the present stage of evidence by the OPs would amount to review of its own order by this Commission which is not permitted by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in M/s. Kamal & Co. (Dealer) Vs. Shri Hari Singh & Anr., decided on 6.9.2012 in MA/1239 of 2010 in connection with Apeal No. 663 of 2003. Another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also relevant in this connection which is M/s. Kesoram Industires Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 2177
Consequently, the instant Misc. Application is dismissed. The questionnaires accompanying the instant Misc. Application are not accepted.
The Misc. Application is thus disposed of.
Fix 8.9.2017 for filing evidence on affidavit by the OPs.
(as per the copy furnished by the appellant)
We note that the consumer complaint was filed in the State Commission in 2012, the impugned interim Order of the State Commission was passed in 2017, that is, the consumer complaint is still pending adjudication before the State Commission over the past so many years.
We also note that sufficient opportunity, and more, was granted by the State Commission to the opposite parties no. 1, 4, 5, & 6 to file their questionnaires.
For holistic and comprehensive adjudication of the case on merit in the forum of original jurisdiction (State Commission), we deem it just and appropriate that the questionnaire filed by the appellant - opposite party no. 1 be taken on record, subject to just and reasonable cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the appellant - opposite party no. 1 to the complainant by way of 'payee's a/c only' bank draft within four weeks from today.
The opposite parties no. 4, 5 & 6 are also provided similar opportunity, that is, if they so desire, they may file their respective questionnaires within four weeks from today, subject to similar cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by each of the respective opposite parties no. 4, 5 & 6, whosoever avails this opportunity, to the complainant by way of 'payee's a/c only' bank draft/s within four weeks from today.
The appellant - opposite party no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 - complainant are directed to bring this Order to the notice of the opposite parties no. 4, 5 & 6 within one week from today, without fail.
Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the respondents no. 4, 5 & 6 - opposite parties no. 4, 5 & 6 and to the State Commission by the Registry within seven days.
'Dasti', in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.
So disposed.