STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/29/RA/22/2025 IN SC/29/A/90/2020 Station Master PRESENT ADDRESS - South Western Railways, Harihar-577601 ,KARNATAKA.

Station Superintendent PRESENT ADDRESS - South Western Railways, Davanagere ,KARNATAKA.

D.R.M.(Commercial), Mysore PRESENT ADDRESS - Mysore Divisional Railways, Managers Office, Mysore(SWR) ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Tippusultan PRESENT ADDRESS - Grasim Industries Employee, r/a Near PetrolBunk, Bhaathi Shivanagappa compound, P.B.Road, Harihara ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/29/RA/22/2025 IN SC/29/A/90/2020 Station Master PRESENT ADDRESS - South Western Railways, Harihar-577601 ,KARNATAKA.

Station Superintendent PRESENT ADDRESS - South Western Railways, Davanagere ,KARNATAKA.

D.R.M.(Commercial), Mysore PRESENT ADDRESS - Mysore Divisional Railways, Managers Office, Mysore(SWR) ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Tippusultan PRESENT ADDRESS - Grasim Industries Employee, r/a Near PetrolBunk, Bhaathi Shivanagappa compound, P.B.Road, Harihara ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMONEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMONEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

04-04-2025 ORDERS ON ADMISSION MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER Advocate for the Review Petitioner submits that, on 4.12.2024 this Commission was pleased to dismiss the Appeal No.90/2020 on the ground that, the petitioners were not present to address their arguments on the said date. Further submits that, two of the counsels on record were in Visakhapatnam from 16.9.2024 till 14.11.2024 in connection with their son’s wedding held on 10.11.2024. Further the senior counsel on record had been to Australia to attend an international

st th

conference held at Sydney University, Sydney from 1 to 4 December, 2024. Hence they had

instructed their junior colleague to appear in all cases during the said periods. However on

4.12.2024 the said junior had other cases to attend and by the time he appeared before this commission after attending those cases, the said appeal was already called and adjourned. The junior counsel was under an impression that, the case was adjourned for arguments. However this commission was pleased to dismiss the above said appeal for non-prosecution which is contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission. Hence, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. Aggrieved by the said order, the Review Petitioner has preferred this review petition.

2. Further submits that, in case of Softvision Biotechnology and Science College and another vs Ruchika Guresh and another, 2014 SCC online NCDRC 47 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission in para No.5 observed that, “the Hon’ble State Commission ought not to have dismissed appeal in default, but should have decided the appeal on merits” and prays to set aside the impugned order dated 4.12.2024 passed by this Commission.

3. Perused the order passed by this Commission, we noticed that, the Appeal No.90/2020 filed by the appellant in the year 2020, after delay of 100 days. Moreover inspite of sufficient opportunities have been granted, the appellant had not appeared and argued the matter. Hence this commission has dismissed the said appeal holding that, the appellant has no interest in continuing the case. This dismissal order does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record as per Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 50 of the CP Act, 2019 reveals hereunder;

“The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order”.

4. The Review Petitioner contended certain grounds for non appearance on 4-12-2024 such as two of the counsel on record were in Visakhapatnam from