AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 22.7.2015 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner is before this Commission.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that on the date, the said order came to be passed, an application seeking adjournment was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission noted that on an earlier occasion, i.e., 21.1.2015 another adjournment application had been allowed, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost but that cost had not been paid. It was also noted that an adjournment was also granted to the petitioner on 7.10.2014. One more adjournment was granted to the petitioner on 22.4.2015. Thus as many as three adjournments had been granted to the petitioner. Though the conduct of the petitioner in seeking one adjournment after the other before the State Commission, does not justify any indulgence, considering that he is an ex-army person and claims to be a consumer, I am inclined to grant more opportunity to the petitioner to argue his appeal on merits, before the State Commission.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission is restored, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost with the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within eight weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 22.9.2020. No adjournment to any party shall be given on that date and the matter will be heard on merits.
The revision petition stands disposed of.