AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 12.09.2019 passed in complaint no. 177 of 2018 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is present. However, none appeared for the appellant / complainant and respondent no. 2. 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, we deem it just and appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned counsel present and not to delay it any further, much more so, when the impugned Order does not involve any complicated question of law or fact at all and relates only to the closure of opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence because his counsel defaulted to appear.
Heard the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Perused the material on record, including the impugned Order dated 12.09.2019 of the State Commission and the grounds of the appeal.
The impugned Order of 12.09.2019 is reproduced below for ready reference:
Advocate for Complainant Harish Tripathi not appeared. Asha Sharma for OP1 appeared. Advocate for OP2 appeared. Last opportunity for complainant evidence was given. Evidence not submitted. Complainant evidence is closed. Matter is posted for opposite party’s evidence on 04/12/2019.
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 over all circumstances it appears that the complainant ought not to have been left remediless just because his counsel for some reason failed to appear on the date fixed. The order sheet shows that on earlier occasions counsel for the complainant did appear on a number of dates. By putting an embargo on the opportunity to lead evidence, the precious right of the complainant to prove his case has been taken away. The order appears to be rather harsh specially when it does not appear to be a case of perennial default on the part of complainant. Hence after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case in their totality, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable and sufficient opportunity ought to be provided to the complainant to lead evidence.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has also been gracious enough to show fairness of approach and does not raise any serious objection if opportunity to lead evidence is provided to the complainant.
As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case the Order dated 12.09.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the State Commission is directed to take the evidence of the complainant on record. It goes without saying that if fresh evidence is adduced by the complainant the opposite parties shall be given opportunity to rebut the same and defend themselves as they wish. The complainant is sternly advised to conduct its case professionally before the State Commission.
The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.07.2023 the date said to have been already fixed by State Commission. In case any of the parties does not appear on the date fixed the State Commission shall issue notice to it and proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this appeal and to learned counsel for appellant as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.