KIRANPAL SINGH vs OMEGA MARITINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 08.12.2015 whereby First Appeal No. 367 of 2014 filed by the petitioner complainant was dismissed for non prosecution.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner filed a consumer complaint against the respondent opposite parties alleging that pursuant to the

advertisement given by the opposite parties, the petitioner took admission in B.Sc. Nautical Science Diploma Course run by the opposite parties. The total fee for the course was Rs.4,00,000/- plus Rs.1,50,000/- for providing 18 months training after the completion of course. The complainant paid the fee of Rs.5,50,000/- including the training fee at various dates. It is the case of the complainant that after completion of the diploma course, the complainant requested opposite parties to provide the promised practical training but the opposite parties failed to arrange for practical training of complainant on a ship. Although the opposite parties sent the complainant to Mumbai, Madras, Delhi and Ahmedabad for training but during his stay in the said cities, no practical training was given and the complainant had to incur expenses for his stay. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant raised a consumer dispute before District Forum Hoshiarpur.

As opposite party has failed to put in appearance, the District Forum decided the complaint ex pare on the basis of evidence produced by the complainant and directed the opposite party as under: " As a result of our above discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted ex part and OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.5,12,500/- along with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.1 shall be ,liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,32,500/- from the date of complaint i.e. 02.12.2013 till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record ."

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission seeking enhancement of compensation. The appeal, however, was dismissed for non prosecution vide impugned order which is reproduced as under: " We find that notices sent to respondents on 31.12.2014 were received back with the report "Left". The correct address was to be filed by the appellant. Since 18.02.2015, the appellant has availed 5-6 dates, but appellant has not bothered to furnish correct particulars of the respondents who have left their address as per report of the postal authority. So, in the circumstances of the case, no further indulgence can be show to appellant and appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution on the part of the appellant ."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner. The State Commission dismissed the appeal for non prosecution in the morning hours due to non appearance of the counsel for the petitioner who was busy in some other matter. It is argued that on the same day, an application for substituted service of the opposite parties was drafted with a view to file in the Court which is a clear indication that petitioner was diligently pursuing the revision petition. Thus, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.

On reading of the impugned order of the State Commission, we find that petitioner had been negligent in pursuing the appeal. He was given six opportunities to file correct address of the

respondent opposite party but in vain. The plea of the petitioner is that petitioner could not trace out the correct address of the opposite party. therefore, he had drafted an application for substituted service on 08.12.2015. This plea is not acceptable for the reason that if at all the petitioner wanted to file application for substituted service, he should have done the needful prior to the date of hearing. Otherwise also, there is no cogent explanation as to why the counsel for the petitioner did not appear on the relevant date. Thus, we find no fault in the impugned order dismissing the appeal for non prosecution.

Otherwise also, on going through the order of the District Forum, we find that although grievance of the complainant was regarding failure of the opposite parties to provide for 18 months practical training, for which the complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/-, the District Forum has awarded refund of entire fee i.e. Rs.5,12,500/- as proved by the deposit receipts, besides compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The said compensation awarded by the District Forum to our mind is more that reasonable and there appears to be no cause for enhancement of the same.

In view of the discussion, we find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.