IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a party should not suffer due to the mistake of its counsel, and that the court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is determined by the territories within which the cause of action arises.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.04.2023 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the NCDRC’).

2. By way of passing the aforesaid orders, the NCDRC has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners in default for want of prosecution. Subsequently, a restoration application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.06.2022 has also been rejected by the NCDRC vide order dated 13.04.2023.

Submissions by the petitioners:-

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed a complaint case No.37/2017 against the petitioners before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the State Commission’) and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2018 and it has been held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.46,40,400/- along with interest @9% interest from the date of each deposit. It is also held that the complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceedings with interest @ 9% from the date of order. Counsel submits that aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 27.09.2018, the petitioners submitted an appeal before the NCDRC wherein an interim order dated 13.02.2020 was passed and the petitioners were directed to deposit amount of Rs.46,40,400/-. Counsel submits that pursuant to the interim order passed by the NCDRC, the aforesaid amount was deposited and, subsequently, the same was released in favour of the respondents. Counsel submits that one fine morning i.e. 14.06.2022, the appeal was dismissed in default for want of prosecution on the part of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the date fixed and posted in the appeal was not in the knowledge and notice of the petitioners and for want of presence of the counsel for the petitioners, the appeal was dismissed in default. Counsel submits that taking all these grounds, a restoration application was submitted before the NCDRC, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 13.04.2023. Counsel submits that aggrieved by both orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.04.2023 passed by the NCDRC, the petitioners submitted a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).30332/2023 and the same was decided by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.5263/2023 titled M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. Counsel submits that referring the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Apex Court, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. Counsel submits that a detailed explanation was given before the NCDRC about the non-appearance of petitioners but without considering the same, the restoration application filed by the petitioners was rejected. Counsel submits that the said application filed by the petitioners was rejected because of the non-appearance of the counsel. Counsel submits that if at all there was any mistake on the part of the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be allowed to be made sufferer as the petitioners have already complied with the interim direction issued by the NCDRC and the amount in question i.e. Rs.46,40,400/- has already been deposited, hence, the matter is required to be posted and adjudicated on its merits. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Vijay Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC 684. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.04.2023 be set aside.

Submissions by th