AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
This first appeal has been filed, with delay of 11 days, under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 11.10.2019 passed in complaint no. 364 of 2013 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi.
A perusal of the record shows that the challenge is to an order of the State Commission vide which the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (‘the complainant’). Perused the material on record, including the impugned Order dated 11.10.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay.
Vide its Order of 11.10.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint in default. The said Order is reproduced below for ready reference:
11.10.2019
Present: None for the complainant.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Counsel for the OP.
C-364/2013
No one has appeared on behalf of complainant despite awaiting.
Even from the last two consecutive dates i.e. 11.09.2018 and 03.04.2019 none had appeared for complainant.
It appears complainant is not interested in pursuing its complaint.
In view of above, present complaint stands dismissed for non-appearance/non-prosecution.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Learned counsel for the appellant has elaborated upon the reasons and circumstances for filing this appeal with delay. He has also tried to elaborate upon the merits of the case as well as upon the circumstances which prevented the complainant and his counsel from appearing in the State Commission. It has been contended that if opportunity be provided to pursue the complaint on merits and of being heard there are fair prospects of this complaint being allowed by the State Commission or else the complainant shall be left remediless and its cause shall suffer irreparably.
In the wake of the submissions made and the explanation given for delay and also in order to facilitate arriving at a just conclusion on merits the delay in filing this appeal stands condoned.
It transpires that on the date fixed in the State Commission as well as on the previous two consecutive dates neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint in default.
This Commission at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality and keeping in perspective the explanation proffered for non-appearance, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable opportunity be further provided to the complainant for adjudication of his complaint on merit in the State Commission, lest he be left remediless. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the case is remanded back to be heard on merits after providing opportunity to both the sides.
As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case the Order dated 11.10.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case in the right earnest.
The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 10.07.2023. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint on merit after providing adequate opportunity to both the parties to pursue the matter as per law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this appeal and to learned counsel for appellant as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.