Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President; Ms. Rumnita Mittal &
Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Members
AMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR.—Petitioners
versus
RADHA KRISHAN INTERNATIONAL—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 230 of 2003—Decided on 18.7.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Petitioners:Mr. Nitish Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Nahata, Advocate.
A complaint dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant can be restored on good cause shown, and the District Forum has the power to restore a complaint dismissed for default after sufficient cause for the absence of the complainant is shown.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Restoration of Complaint - The court held that a complaint dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant can be restored on good cause shown, such as illness of the complainant's counsel. The court cited previous cases and established that the District Forum has the power to restore a complaint dismissed for default after sufficient cause for the absence of the complainant is shown.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was dismissed due to the absence of the complainant, who later filed a restoration application citing illness of the Counsel. The District Forum ordered for the restoration of the complaint, which was challenged in the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restoration of the complaint was justified based on the sufficient cause shown for the absence of the complainant, i.e., illness of the Counsel. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no ground to interfere with the order of restoration.
Issues: The main contention was the maintainability of the restoration application and whether the District Forum had the power to restore the complaint dismissed for default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a complaint dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant can be restored on good cause shown, such as illness of the complainant's counsel. The District Forum has the power to restore a complaint dismissed for default after sufficient cause for the absence of the complainant is shown.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Member—This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Amritsar Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the District Forum (Central), I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Vide impugned order dated 6.2.2003, the District Forum ordered for the restoration of the complaint to its original number which was dismissed due to absence of the complainant on 9.12.2002, the earlier date filed in this case. The ground for restoration given by the complainant was that his Counsel was unable to attend the Forum due to illness. A cost of Rs. 100/- was imposed on the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the above order of the District Forum alleging that the restoration has been made on the false plea of the complainant (respondent in this petition) and in fact the complainant has never engaged any Counsel and no medical certificate or affidavit has been filed by the complainant to this effect.
2. The respondent did not file any reply in this Commission and hence with the consent of both the parties, the matter was finally heard on the basis of the material on record.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and it should have been dismissed by the District Forum. We have given our careful consideration. It is now well settled that complaint dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant can be restored on good cause shown. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Shri R. Srinivasan, I (2000) CPJ 19 (SC), has held that in the absence of the complainant, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. So also it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non-appearance of the complainant. This Commission also in the case of Shri Anil Kumar Bhola v. New India Assurance Co., I (1996) CPJ 359, has held that the District Forum does have the powers to restore the complaint dismissed for default after sufficient cause for the absence of the complainant is shown to the satisfaction of the Forum.
4. In the instant case, the case was listed for hearing on 9.12.2002 when it was dismissed due to absence of the complainant. The complainant moved a restoration application on 1.2.2003 and notice was issued to the O.P. (present petitioner). The restoration application was disposed on 6.2.2003. The reason mentioned by the complainant was due to illness of the Counsel. In our view, , illness of the Counsel is a sufficient cause explaining the absence of the complainant and is a sufficient ground to restore the complaint. The restoration order was passed after the petitioner filed reply and after hearing both the parties. Thus there appears no infirmity in the order dated 6.2.2003 passed by the District Forum and there is no ground to interfere with the order. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. In view of the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost.
Revision Petition dismissed.
