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 Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Revision Petition No.35 of 2016. By the impugned order, while granting one opportunity to the Petitioners to file their Written Versions in the Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2016, the State Commission has directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant 2,500/- as costs.
The short grievance of the Petitioners in this Revision Petition is that since they had not been properly served with the notice in the Complaint and the Complaint itself was not maintainable inasmuch as a similar Complaint had earlier been dismissed as withdrawn, the imposition of costs on the Petitioners was not warranted, besides adequate opportunity to file the Written Versions was not granted by the State Commission.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, we are unable to read any Jurisdictional error in the impugned directions, warranting our interference. On a pointed query, learned Counsel has stated that the Written Version has since been filed by the Petitioners. If that be so, the imposition of costs, apart from being purely discretionary, even the quantum of the costs imposed cannot be said to be so arbitrary to warrant our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.