AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2019 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) whereby the Complaint No.2056 of 2017 filed by the Appellants was dismissed in default on account of their non-appearance.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Complainants/Appellants that he could not attend the proceedings before the State Commission on 25.09.2019 since he had noted the wrong date. It is further submitted that instead of noting the date 25.09.2019, he noted the date as 25.10.2019 and it was only on 25.10.2019 when he came to attend the proceedings that he learnt that his case was dismissed in default. On these contentions, it is prayed that a lenient view be taken; the impugned order be set aside and the Complaint be restored.
It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed as there exists no ground for setting aside the impugned order. It is submitted that the Complainants are chronic defaulter and not only on 25.09.2019, they also failed to appear before the State Commission on 14.02.2019, as recorded in the impugned order and therefore, they do not deserve any leniency. It is also submitted that after dismissal of their Complaint, they filed a Petition before the NCLT which due to a notification became non-maintainable and therefore, they withdrew it. On these contentions, it is submitted that the Appeal be dismissed.
We have perused the file. The Consumer Protection Act is a welfare provision enacted in order to help the consumers who had been harassed in the hands of service provider. It is always expected that a compassionate attitude should be maintained by the Commissions since these are meant to protect the rights of the consumers. In this case, no doubt, the State Commission showed that compassion on 14.02.2019 and did not dismiss the Complaint in default. However, on the second date, i.e. 25.09.2019, due to non-appearance on behalf of the Complainants, the Complaint was dismissed in default.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants has clearly explained that he had wrongly noted the date as 25.10.2019 and therefore, he attended the proceedings only on 25.10.2019 when he learnt that his case was dismissed in default. It is settled proposition of law that no client should be made to suffer due to fault on the part of his Advocate. Also filing of NCLT proceeding, which was subsequently withdrawn, does not stop this Commission from entertaining the present Appeal and passing appropriate orders.
In the interest of justice, in order to further the object of Consumer Protection Act, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2019 and the Complainant No.2056 of 2017 is restored to its original position.
Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.09.2022.
Copy of the order be sent to the State Commission and free copy be given to the parties.