AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Case No. C -70/1999 Kuldeep Singh Bagga Vs. Okara Groups of Company and Ors. by which, complaint was allowed against the OPs and application for setting aside ex -parte order dated 9.7.2007 was dismissed.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 filed complaint on 8.4.1999 before State Commission for refund of Rs.6,25,000/ - deposited as fixed deposit with 2% per month interest. This complaint was dismissed in default on 29.9.2000. Complainant filed application for restoration of complaint on 31.1.2001 and notices were issued to OPs. As none appeared for complainant on 16.4.2002, this application was dismissed. Again complainant filed Misc. Application on 6.8.2002 on which notices were issued to OPs and this application was adjourned from time to time for hearing and ultimately adjourned for arguments to 9.7.2007. On 9.7.2007, it appears that none appeared before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 9.7.2007 allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund Rs.6,25,000/ - along with compensation of Rs.25,000/ -. OP No. 4 to 7 filed application for recall of order dated 9.7.2007 which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 13.9.2008 and appellant filed this appeal challenging both the orders.
RESPONDENT Nos. 5 and 6 died and they were deleted. None appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 even after service and they were proceeded ex -parte.
HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission allowed complaint, though; no complaint was pending before State Commission, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that learned State Commission dismissed complaint in default on 29.9.2000 and application for restoration was also dismissed on 16.4.2002 and application for restoration of restoration application was pending for arguments before the State Commission and learned State Commission vide order dated 9.7.2007 allowed complaint, though, in fact, no complaint was pending before State Commission. No order on the complaint should have been passed till the complaint stood restored. In the case in hand, not only complaint itself was dismissed in default, application for restoration of complaint was also dismissed in default and application for restoration of restoration application was pending and there was no occasion to allow complaint before its restoration. In such circumstances, order dated 9.7.2007 is liable to set aside.
AS far order dated 13.3.2008 is concerned, learned State Commission rightly observed that it has no power to recall its order. I agree to this view that State Commission has no power to recall its order and in such circumstances, order dated 13.3.2008 passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and appeal is liable to be dismissed to this extent.
CONSEQUENT LY , appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and order dated 9.7.2007 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint Case No. C -70/1999 - Kuldeep Singh Bagga Vs. Okara Groups of Company and Ors. is set aside and matter is remanded to the learned State Commission to decide application for restoration of restoration application after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
PETITIONER is directed to appear before the State Commission on 12.1.2015.