AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision petition the authorised representative of the petitioner appears in person and contends that there being no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for dismissing the complaint in default, the order passed by the learned District Forum on 21st of August, 1995, by which his complaint had been dismissed was without jurisdiction. It is further stated that since the authorised representative of the complainant was ill on that day, he could not appear before the District Forum, but there is no explanation for the non-appearance of the complainant Telu Ram Gupta. IN these circumstances, the application for restoration of the complaint, which has been dismissed in default has been rejected by the learned District Forum. While making the contention, the authorised representative of the petitioner has lost sight of the statutory provision contained in Rule 4(8) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 made under Section 30(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under : "If during the proceedings conducted under Section 13, District Forum fixes a date for hearing of the parties, it shall be obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or its authorised agent to appeal before the District Forum on such date of hearing or any other date to which hearing could be adjourned. Where the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the District Forum on such day, the District Forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. Where the opposite party or its authorised agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum may decide the complaint ex-parte."
IN view of this statutory provision the order passed by the learned District Forum on 21st of August, 1995 dismissing the complaint in default was well within its jurisdiction. So far as the application for the restoration of the complaint is concerned, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, whereby the application has been dismissed. It has been rightly observed by the learned Forum that if the authorised representative of the complainant was ill and could not attend the proceedings before the District Forum, the complainant-Telu Ram Gupta could very well appear before the District Forum to make the request as there is no such allegation that he too was ill. Under the circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned District Forum and the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.