VISHWA SHARAMAYATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

THE present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 6th March, 2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi, in Case No. 778/1998 - entitled Vishwa Sharamayatan Education Society v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petition, lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, alleging ''Deficiency in Service'' on the part of the respondent. In the abovesaid complaint, filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner/complainant on 20th July, 2000. THE learned District Forum, instead of passing an adverse order against the petitioner/complainant, adjourned the complaint case to 7th September, 2000, with the directions that a default notice for 7th September, 2000, be issued to the petitioner/complainant. On 7th September, 2000, despite service of default notice, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner/complainant as a result of which the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed in default. THE petitioner filed an application on 5th December, 2002 i.e. after a lapse of more than two years for the restoration of the complaint dismissed in default, vide order dated 7th September, 2000. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the above mentioned application dated 5th December, 2002, filed by the petitioner for restoration of the complaint dismissed in default, vide order dated 7th September, 2000.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length on the question of admission of the present petition and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a perusal of the documents/material on record, it is apparent that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed by the learned District Forum in default of appearance of the petitioner as the petitioner did not care to appear even on 7.9.2000 despite service of default notice. Even the application for restoration of the complaint, dismissed in default, was filed by the petitioner after a gap of more than two years i.e. on 5th December, 2002. The learned District Forum has dismissed that application on the ground that the same was filed at a highly belated stage and that there was no ground for condoning the delay and secondly on the ground that the petitioner did not care to appear despite service of notice on the date of hearing. Without going into technicalities, we with a view to satisfy ourselves, have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner failed to appear before the District Forum on 20th July, 2000 and thereafter despite service of notice on 7th September, 2000. However, no satisfactory reply could be given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to our above query. In the present petition also the petitioner has not stated a single word as to what prevented him from causing appearance in the complaint case before the District Forum either on 20.7.2000 or thereafter on 7.9.2000. In the presence of the above facts, the present petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.