AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, is directed against the order, dated 31.03.2015, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Madurai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.11 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while holding that an opportunity of hearing deserves to be granted to the Petitioner, the Opposite Party in the Complaint, has set aside the order, dated 06.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur in CC No.38 of 2014. By the said order, the District Forum , while accepting the Complaint, had directed the Respondent to refund to the Complainant a sum of 20/-, the amount collected in excess of the M.R.P. on sale of a tubelight, along with 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and 2,000/- towards the cost of the litigation, within 30 days of the date of the order, failing which the Opposite Party was directed to pay on the said amounts interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the order till realization.
Despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae .
The main submission of the Learned Amicus Curiae is that apart from the fact that the impugned order offends the very spirit of the Act, as can be gathered from Section 13 (3A) of the Act, which stipulates disposal of a Complaint in a time bound manner, even otherwise the order is non-speaking, in as much as the State Commission has not recorded any reason for arriving at the said conclusion.
Though I find some substance in the contention urged, but bearing in mind the fact that according to the State Commission, the principles of natural justice had been violated by the District Forum by taking ex parte proceedings against the Petitioner and having regard to the nature of the issue involved in the Complaint, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
It goes without saying that while taking up the Complaint for fresh adjudication and if prayer is made on behalf of the Petitioner to file written version, the District Forum shall consider the prayer, keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, AIR 2016 SC 86 ".
The District Forum is directed to dispose of the Complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Before parting, I place on record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae .