IMPORTANT POINT
Restoration of complaint which was dismissed for default , does not amount to review of order of dismissal of complaint.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 10.3.2011 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’).

2. Respondent No.1/complainant has filed a complaint before State Commission. On 27.7.2010, the matter was fixed for admission hearing before State Commission. Neither complainant nor her counsel appeared before the State Commission and as such complaint of respondent no.1 was dismissed in default. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed an application under order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for restoration of the complaint. The complaint was restored vide the impugned order.

3. Main grievance of the petitioner is that State Commission has no power to review its own order, as such the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust1 and decision of this Commission in P.C. Jain v. Dr. R.P. Singh.2

4. Relevant portion of impugned order passed by State Commission read as under;

“This is an application filed by the applicant complainant for restoration of it’s complaint which was dismissed in default at the stage of admission. We have heard the complainant. Counsel for the OPs have placed objection. The Ops have no locus standi unless the complaint is admitted, and notice is issued to them. The reason given in the application which finds support from the affidavit of the applicant, the complaint is restored on it’s original number.”

5. Since, the matter was pending before the State Commission at admission stage, it rightly observed that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the application for restoration filed by respondent No.1, unless the complaint is admitted and notice is issued to the petitioner.

6. Regarding this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has no power to review its own order, the impugned order vide which the compliant was restored, does not amount to any review.

7. Judgments (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of its contentions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases, State Commission has set aside the ex-parte order passed by it and in that context, it was observed that State Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte order passed by it.

8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan3 Apex Court has laid down that:

“Every court or judicial body or authority which has a duty decide a lis between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or, for that matter of judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, 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.”

9. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, we find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission nor there is any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, present revision petition is not maintainable and the same is, hereby dismissed.

Revision Petition dismissed.

*******