N.AMMASAI GOUNDER vs V.S.MURTHI

THIS petition is for restoration of O.P. No. 462/92 dismissed for default on 26.3.1994. The affidavit in support of the petition has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner. As per the said affidavit, the case was posted to 28.3.1994 and on that day, since the Counsel and his Clerk could not attend the Court, the O.P. was dismissed for default. In the O.P., written version had been filed an affidavits of proof were also filed and the matter was also argued. But at that time, this Commission felt that appointment of a Commissioner was necessary to inspect the property involved in the O.P. and hence the case was adjourned. At that time, it was considered that there was no provision for restoration of a complaint dismissed for default. Hence the petitioner was advised to file a civil suit. But, for want of funds he could not do so. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary that the complaint be restored.

NOTICE had been ordered in this CMP and it had been served on the respondents also. But there is no representation for them. However, even from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, we are clearly of the view that the petition cannot be allowed. Earlier the O.P. was dismissed as early as 26.3.1994. This petition has been filed after 692 days. For this delay, we find no reason at all given. The petitioner appears to say that at the relevant time it was considered that there was no provision for filing a petition for restoration of an O.P. dismissed for default. That may be so, but the complainant, as advised, has not filed a civil suit. He could have taken the matter on appeal to the National Commission. In any event, the delay of 692 days is a colossal one especially when the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act is summary. For this long delay there is no reason at all given. Thus we find there is no justification in allowing the petition.

In the result, therefore, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.