Pavanjeet Goyal vs Girish Chaudhary & 2 Ors

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against impugned order dated 17.07.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘the State Commission’).

As per Office report, there is a delay of 15 days in filing of the present Appeal.  For the reasons stated in IA/19262/2018, the delay is condoned.

Heard the learned Counsels for both the Parties and perused the material available on record. This Appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the impugned order of learned State Commission in CC No. 228 of 2014 dated 17.07.2018 and restore the complaint to its original number and to grant a final opportunity to the parties to place written submission on record.

It is a matter of record that the case was heard by the learned State Commission on 17.07.2018 on which date it was recorded by the State Commission that both the parties have failed to file written arguments. The Complainant did not appear even on the last date i.e. 13.10.2017 also. It appears that complainant is not interested in pursuing the compliant and the complaint was dismissed in default.

Learned counsel for the Complainant argues that the Complainant is a senior citizen and that during the period in question she and her husband went abroad due to certain pressing personal reasons and that substantial pleadings and the evidence on their behalf was already filed with respect to the complaint. As they were eager to file certain additional documents, the counsel awaited filing the same for her to return from abroad to sign the documents. The learned counsel regretted the inadvertence in non-appearance which has led to its dismissal on such impression. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 13.10.2017 counsel for the appellant could not appear before the State Commission due to certain personal commitments and unfortunately the nominated proxy counsel also failed to appear. The Appellant consistently checked on the website of the State Commission about the next date which unfortunately was not updated and subsequently on filing scheduled date as 17.07.2018 he rushed to the State Commission only to discover that the order has already been passed. He pleaded that the appellant is genuinely interested in pursuing the matter and that the consideration made while dismissing the complaint is not based on facts. The situation emerged was never intended. He, therefore, sought the matter be remanded to the State Commission for restore to its Original Number and disposed of on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that due to the absence of the counsel, Ms. Upasana Sharma, a colleague, appeared on her behalf on 17.07.2018. Discrepancy arose when compared this assertion with Annexure-E of the First Appeal, where the incident date is listed as 13.04.2018, not 13.07.2018 as claimed. This inconsistency suggests an attempt to mislead this Commission. As regards non-appearance of Ms. Upasana Sharma, learned Advocate, the reason cited was her accompanying her sister for document postulation at the SDM office, despite the long-known hearing date. No corroboration was provided, indicating a fabrication. The Appellant's husband was in India around the hearing date, and the Appellant herself left the country shortly before, without informing her counsel, indicating a lack of interest and disregard for the commission's authority. While the State Commission had previously excused the appellant's default on 13.10.2017, this second default demonstrated disregard for procedure, wasting the commission's time and resources. Thus, the appeal lacks merit for restoration.

Considering the submissions made and arguments advanced, including the age of Appellant, travelling abroad and other associated reasons, the order of learned State Commission dated 17.07.2018 is set aside, subject to the Appellant depositing Rs. 5,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account – at the learned State Commission within a period of four weeks. Subject thereto, complaint is restored to its original number before the learned State Commission.

Consequently, the First Appeal No. 1856 of 2018 is allowed.

All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 28.05.2024.  The Appellant is directed to file the proof of deposit of cost before the State Commission on that date.