AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.03.2013 of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 553 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 23.01.2013 of the District Commission in Complaint No. 44 of 2012.
The instant Revision Petition has been filed with reported delay of 65 days. However, in the interest of justice, in order to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the Petition is condoned.
It appears that none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner / Complainant before the State Commission on the date fixed. None had appeared even on behalf of the respondents. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner / Complainant was dismissed in non-prosecution by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 05.03.2013 which may be quoted herein below:
05.03.2013:
None for the appellant, even in second round.
None for the respondents also.
It appears that both the parties are not at all interest in prosecuting this appeal, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in non-prosecution.
The present Revision Petition is pending since 2013. This is not a matter in which any complex or complicated question of law or fact is involved at all. This is a simple matter of dismissal in non-prosecution for the reason of non-appearance of the Petitioner / Complainant. It is relevant that The Consumer Protection Act is for “better protection of the interests of the consumers”, its Statement of Objects & Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. The present Petition was filed on 07.08.2013 and notice was ordered to be issued on 16.12.2013, almost more than 9 ½ years back. No good reason to delay the hearing any further is visible, and it is deemed appropriate to decide the matter on its merits on the basis of the record.
Respondent No. 2 was ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 26.11.2014 passed by this Commission. The Respondent No. 1 could not be served for all these years. Even Order dated 12.02.2020 was passed by this Commission to serve the Respondent No.1 through publication but according to the learned counsel, the Petitioner is too a poor lady to afford such course of action. The matter also relates to a paltry sum. In this matter the Petitioner is a Complainant. Ordinarily, this Bench would have proceeded for adjudication after hearing all parties but as the impugned Order would indicate that no complicated questions of facts or law are involved at all in the matter and the Appeal of the Petitioner / Complainant had been dismissed in non-prosecution just on the ground of its absence before the State Commission on the date fixed. Therefore, it is deemed expedient by the Bench to take up the matter and to decide the same on the basis of record and not to procrastinate the same any further.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances under which the counsel or the Petitioner could not appear before the State Commission. Submission is that the view taken by the State Commission is too harsh and an opportunity of hearing and for pursuing the matter on merits may be granted so that the Petitioner / Complainant may not be rendered remediless. Submission is that it shall cause irreparable injustice to the Petitioner / Complainant if the matter is not remitted back to the State Commission so that the Appeal may be decided on merits instead of dismissing it non-prosecution.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the State Commission and the Order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Commission.
Without making any observations about the merits of the case, lest, the same may cause any prejudice to either side and colour the vision of the fora below, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner / Complainant and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds given in the memo of Petition, it is deemed expedient to give a further opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner / Complainant to pursue her case on merits and not to leave her remediless. The impugned Order dated 05.03.2013 is hence set aside and the present Revision Petition is remitted back to the State Commission with the request to decide the same on merits.
The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.10.2023.
The principal onus of informing the Respondents / Opposite Parties about this instant Order shall be of the Petitioner / Complainant, she shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the Respondents / Opposite Parties do not appear before the State Commission on the date of hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. The State Commission in such a situation may also direct the Petitioner / Complainant to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service to the Respondents / Opposite Parties.
It may be observed that in case on the date fixed for hearing or any future date, the Petitioner / Complainant fails to appear before the State Commission personally or through her counsel or authorized representative, the State Commission shall be free to proceed with the matter as it may deem fit in accordance with law in its own discretion.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days.