AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
The matter has been taken up on the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as it has been made to appear by the learned counsel that the execution proceedings are going on. It has been requested that the matter may be heard today itself.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the matter has been taken up and the learned counsel has been heard.
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the State Commission arising out of the Order dated 28.03.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 315 of 2007.
The State Commission by the impugned Order dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner for want of prosecution. For better appreciation of the matter, the impugned Order is being quoted herein below:
25.07.2022 None for appellant.
Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent.
This appeal is pending since 7.5.2008. We find that on 3.10.2019, 10.12.2019 none appeared for appellant. On 27.2.2020 adjournment has been sought on behalf of appellant. On 22.3.2021 and 10.11.2021 also none appeared for appellant. On 5.1.2022, 3.2.2022 and 31.3.2022 also adjournment has been sought on behalf of appellant.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
It appears that the Complaint was filed by the Complainant in the District Commission long back in 2007 and the following award was made by the District Commission vide its Order dated 28.03.2008:
As aforesaid, the following order is passed on this date that the respondent should:-
Make and provide gold Sitarami jewelery (based on the design selected by the complainant at the time of placing the order) weighing about 62 grams to the complainant within 1 month from the date of this order. At the time of delivery of the jewelery to the complainant, collect the remaining 25% i.e. Rs.11,250/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) of the cost of the jewelery from the Complainant.
in case of non-delivery of jewelery within the above time period, pay the cost of god weighing 62 grams to the complainant. Along with this, shall also pay the amount received for the making of jewelery is Rs. 3500/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) and the tax amount of Rs. 580/- (Rupes Five Hundred and Eighty only). On the date of return, gold price will be based on prevailing market gold price per 10 grams. The standard (carat) of gold will be the same which was as on 16.09.2005 for Rs. 6580/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only)
pay Rs.1500/- (One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony.
pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
In the event of non-payment of all the above amounts within 1 month, interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total amount from the date of order today will be paid to the Complainant.
Aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission which was dismissed for non-prosecution as stated above. Submission made by the learned counsel is that the matter ought to be adjudicated on merits as the Petitioner had a good case on merits and if the lawyer of the Petitioner could not appear before the State Commission for some reason that is no good ground to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
The learned counsel has been fair enough to admit that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned Order but the contention is that in the interest of justice, the Petition may be allowed.
Perused the entire record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
It may be observed that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on this Commission has its own limitation and confines and has a limited ambit. The Order under challenge must be shown to have been passed either in excess of its jurisdiction or where the fora below may be said to have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction. If this Bench sees any glaring absurdity in the impugned Order or any element of perversity in the same or any such material irregularity which makes it incumbent to interfere it does take corrective steps and pass necessary orders but as a matter of course unless some error of jurisdiction is reflected this Bench is loath to meddle with the Order passed by the fora below. Besides that one of the additional reason why this Bench feels even more hesitant to interfere with the Order is that the same has been passed in an appeal which had been pending since 2008 and which relates to the Complaint which was filed in the year 2007. Yet the Consumer is still cooling its heels awaiting to get justice and to see its award being complied with. Ordinarily, the Benches do not grudge accommodating the counsels but when the matter lingers on beyond proportion and the court perceives that due diligence is not being displayed and the matter is not being pursued in right earnest, it does feel constrained to pass appropriate orders which may sound strict or stringent. The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act was with the avid object of providing speedy justice to the aggrieved consumers and the normative period to decide the matter was expected to be 90 days but as is apparent on the face of record that Complaint which was filed in 2007, the matter is still taking rounds in the legal rigmarole. The long pending proceedings were certainly under some provisions of law but the bench has to sometimes pass orders in order to obviate a situation where only the letter of law may be said to have survived but where the spirit of law gets buried fathoms deep.
The perusal of the impugned Order shows that the State Commission has taken into account the non-appearance of the Appellant on a number of dates and also taken into account the number of adjournments that were taken during the proceedings. It appears that the fora below felt constrained to pass the impugned Order as the matter was not found being pursued in right earnest and it was decided to put a period to the proceedings which had also already been lingering on beyond reasonable proportion. This Bench does not find any such jurisdictional error or material irregularity or any such element of perversity in the impugned Order which may persuade the bench to set aside the Order passed by the State Commission or to remand the matter back to get it dumped again for indefinite period of time. Conscionable justice has already been delayed too much and judicial prudence does not commend any interference in the impugned Order.
The instant revision petition being bereft of merits, stands dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.