Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.
District Manager, Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Purna Chandra Parida and others - Opp. parties
W.P.(C) No. 19592 OF 2015
Decided On : 09-08-2017
For the Petitioners: M/s. Banshidhar Baug, M.R. Baug, R.R. Jethi, P.C.P. Das
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Prasana Ku. Mishra, M/s. P.V. Balakrishna & R. Biswal
The maintainability of a writ petition when there is no provision for a second appeal and the need for complete justice in consumer dispute cases.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Challenge to State Commission's order - Section 15
Fact of the Case:
Opposite parties filed a consumer dispute case alleging defect in a tractor tyre purchased from the petitioners. The District Forum ruled in favor of the opposite parties, directing the petitioners to refund the cost of the tyre and pay compensation. The petitioners challenged this order before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioners filed a writ petition alleging the impugned order as illegal and void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition maintainable and set aside the impugned order, remitting the case back to the State Commission for disposal on merit.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition and the validity of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as there was no provision for a second appeal against the order, and the impugned order did not decide the case on merit. The court also emphasized the need for complete justice and expeditious disposal of the case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the State Commission for disposal on merit.
JUDGMENT :
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Challenge has been made to the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter called “the State Commission”) in C.D. Appeal No.29 of 2002 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called “the Act”).
FACTS:
2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that opposite parties 1 and 2 filed Consumer Dispute Case No.29 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nayagarh (hereinafter called “the District Forum”) alleging defect in the tyre of the H.M.T. tractor which was purchased by them on 30.06.1997. They claimed compensation of Rs.4/- lakhs alleging deficiency in service on the part of the present petitioners. The petitioners filed written statement denying the allegations made against them and specifically averred that after purchase of the tractor, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 used the same for commercial purposes although they had purchased it for agricultural purposes having availed necessary subsidy.
3. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, passed the order by allowing the Consumer Dispute Case and further directed the petitioners along with opposite party No.3 to refund Rs. 7,500/- to the complainants towards the cost of the tyre and to change radiator of the tractor with award of Rs. 21,000/- as compensation to the complainants to be paid by the present petitioners and the opposite party No.3.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the present petitioners challenged the same before the State Commission vide Consumer Dispute Appeal No.29 of 2002 purportedly filed under Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was admitted on 14.02.2002 and interim stay was passed against the order of the District Forum. After 08.05.2003, the appeal was not listed for some time but it was posted to 14.01.2015 by issuing intimation to both the parties fixing 11.02.2015 for their appearance. It is, inter alia, alleged that on 11.02.2015 when the case was called, the arguing counsel for the petitioners was absent but his associate Sri P.C.P. Das, advocate appeared, which was ignored by the State Commission as the concerned advocate had no power to conduct the case. So, the case was posted to 20.02.2015, on which date Sri P.C.P. Das, Advocate again appeared as an associate of the arguing counsel Sri B. Baug, but the presence of Sri Das was again ignored. The case was again posted to 12.03.2015 for orders and on the later date Sri Das, Advocate appeared on behalf of Sri B. Baug, Advocate but his presence was again not taken into consideration and the matter was posted to 30.03.2015. On the later date, one Sri Manash Ranjan Baug, Advocate appeared on behalf of Sri B. Baug but the State Commission without accepting his appearance dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Having found no other way, the present writ petition is filed alleging the impugned order in question as illegal and void with a prayer to quash the same.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Mr. B. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality inasmuch as in spite of the presence of the lawyer, the State Commission did not take note of his presence and passed the order of dismissal for non-prosecution. He further submitted that the order of the State Commission is also incorrect by noting that neither party appeared on call but the fact remains that the counsel for the petitioners was present and placing for adjournment, which are not reflected in the impugned order.
6. Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the impugned order has been passed in appeal and there being no provision for Second Appeal against such order, the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court for which he prays to quash the said order of dismissal on merit with the request to restore the same for proper adjudication of the case. It is always prudent for any judicial forum
