STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/21/A/360/2024 RANJIT KUMAR BEHERA PRESENT ADDRESS - SINGH DEO COLONY,DEULI STREET,P.S.BIDANASI,PO/DIST-

CUTTACK,ODISHA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - EASTCOASTRAILWAYS,RAIKSADAN,DEPT OF RAIL,CHANDRASEKHARPUR,BHUBANEESSWAR,ODISHA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. DILIP KUMAR MOHAPATRA. , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SUDHIRALAXMI PATTNAIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MANOJ KUMAR NAYAK (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. H.S. PANDA MR. S. LOKESH KUMAR DATED: 23/06/2025

ORDER

I.A. No. 666 of 2024 F.A. No. 360 of 2024 The Dy. Chief Commercial Manager (FS) has intimated this Commission vide letter dated 10.06.2025 that Sri Lokesh Kumar, Railway Advocate is nominated as the counsel for the East Coast Railway. The name of Mr. S. Lokesh Kumar be reflected in case record and in the cause list.

This is an application for condonation of delay. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

As it appears from the record there is a delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has approached learned District Commission several times to obtain the free copy of the impugned order, finally he received the certified copy of the order on 25.04.2024 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed as such there is no delay on the part of the appellant.

No objection has been filed by the respondent.

Perused the record.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

In the interest of justice, we condone the delay.

F.A. No. 360 of 2024 Heard. Admit.

Copy of the appeal memo served on the counsel for the respondent.

On the consent of both the parties the appeal is taken up today for final disposal.

In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of learned District Commission, Khurda dated 29.01.2024 passed in C.C. Case No. 148 of 2022.

Learned District Commission has passed the impugned order on 29.01.2024 as follows, “Both parties are absent on repeated calls and no steps have been filed on their behalf. Perused the order sheets which reflects that the complainant remained absent since long and no steps has been taken on his behalf. It shows his unwillingness to proceed with this case further. As such, this case is hereby dismissed for default and for non-prosecution”.

During course of the hearing, counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in shape of an affidavit enclosing the documents vide Annexure-1 and 2 to the consumer complaint. The opposite party has also filed the show cause in shape of an affidavit.

Section 38 (3) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly speaks that if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing, the Commission shall decide the complaint on merit. Section 38 (6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also speaks that every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record. In case of absence of the parties, the consumer commission should dispose of the complaint on merit and on the basis of the documents available in record. In the present case, learned District Commission has dismissed the consumer complaint for non-prosecution. The counsels appearing for both the parties submitted that the order passed by the learned District Commission is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

Perused the record.

We find learned District Commission has not disposed of the consumer complaint on merit although the pleadings are complete.

In the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in C.C. Case no. 148 of 2022 and remand the matter to the learned District Commission, Khurda at Bhubaneswar with a direction to dispose of the matter on merit giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt o