The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive application of Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside ex parte orders in relation to original consumer complaints before the National Commission.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Prem Narain, Presiding Member - Ma No.382 of 2017 has been filed in the Revision Petition No.1615-1616 of 2016 with the request that the final order passed in Revision Petition No. 1615-1616 of 2016 dated 3.7.2017 be set aside as this was an ex parte order against the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Learned counsel stated that this Commission has got power to set aside the ex parte order under Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, this MA No.382 of 2017 has been moved for setting aside the ex parte order against the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that Section 22A gives wide powers to this Commission to set aside any ex parte order passed in any complaint case, appeal or revision. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for fresh hearing in the matter after this Commission sets aside the order dated 3.7.2017. Learned counsel referred to the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support his contention that this Commission can set aside an ex parte order.

"Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another, Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007 dt. 19.8.2011, wherein it has been observed:

"37. The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers. We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.

39. In view of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx After the amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22A in the Act in the year 2002 by which the power of review or recall has vested with the National Commission only. xxxxxxxxx"

3. On the necessity of being heard, the learned counsel stated that after the passing of the order of the State Commission as well as by this Commission now the dealer is pressing for purchase of the car though the car prices have gone up many times and he is not ready to refund the amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the petitioner/complainant alongwith interest. The petitioner agreed that originally the complaint was filed for directing the dealer to handover the car at the price of booking date. However, both the Commissions have now decided that car can only be handed over if the complete price as prevailing on the date of handing over the car is paid by the complainant, though, this Commission has allowed interest on Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the complainant for booking of the car to be adjusted in the price of the car.

4. I have given a careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and again examined the material on record.

5. First of all, Section 13(2)(C) of the C.P. Act, 1986 allows the Forum either to dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits if the complainant does not appear on the date of hearing fixed before the Forum. Section 13(2)(C) of the C.P. Act, 1986 reads as under:

"Where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits."

6. Section 22(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that Sections 12,13,14 will be applicable to the proceedings before the National Commission as well. Therefore, this Commission was fully empowered and justified in deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The other party was present and that party was heard. Thus, there is no illegality in passing of this order disposing the revision petition. This order has now attained finality under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no appeal has been filed against this order.

7. Now, coming to the Section 22A of the C.P. Act, 1986, this Commission has held the view that this power to set aside the ex parte order is only in respect of the original c