Rameshbhai S. Sarvaiyya vs Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. A/07/928 - Shri Rameshbhai Shantilal Vs. Shri Ramakant Ramchandra Jadhav by which, application for filing additional documents was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum for refund of Rs.75,000/ and after hearing both the parties, complaint was dismissed by District Forum. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and during pendency of appeal petitioner moved application for filing additional documents which was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that documents annexed with the application were most relevant documents for disposal of the complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing application; hence, revision petition be allowed and application filed by the petitioner before State Commission be allowed and documents be taken on record. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District forum and in paragraph 5 of the complaint, complainant mentioned that after arriving at settlement, OP/respondent issued cheques to the complainant and many a times, the cheques issued by the OP were bounced back. Petitioner has not filed documents before District Forum but after dismissal of complaint, during pendency of appeal, he moved application for filing additional documents along with documents. Perusal of application reveals that petitioner has not given any reason for not placing these documents on record before District Forum. Learned State Commission rightly observed that such type of application cannot be entertained and rightly dismissed application. State Commission further observed that if petitioner was to introduce additional documents, proper procedure was to be followed which was not followed in the case and in such circumstances, application was dismissed.

WE do not find any infirmity, irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. But, at the same time, it would be appropriate to give liberty to petitioner to move a fresh application in proper format with reasons for not placing documents before District Forum which may be decided by learned State Commission on merits after hearing both the parties, as this application has not been dismissed on merits by impugned order.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to cost, but petitioner is given liberty to file another application in proper format, as directed above. CDJLawJournal