AND Writ Petition No.2512 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed in Review Application No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017 by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri V.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar vide C.C.No.43 of 2014, alleging certain deficiencies against the petitioner and the District Consumer Forum was pleased to partly allow the complaint vide order, dated 31.07.2017 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.59,598/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum from November, 2013 till the date of realisation to the petitioner and to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and imposed a cost of Rs.1000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner has preferred the appeal to the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, by filing F.A.No.322 of 2017. However, on 20.12.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the State Commission and as a result, the State Commission dismissed the appeal for default. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed Review Application No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017, seeking to re-call the order of dismissal for default. However, the State Commission has dismissed the Review Application vide order, dated 05.09.2023 with an observation that the State Commission has no power to recall its own orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi v. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and another, 1996 CJ (AP) 724, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Tribunal has quasi-judicial authority and the power to recall its own orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court (supra), the order passed by the State Consumer is liable to be set aside and let the matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear the appeal on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that notices have been served on respondent No.3, but in spite of service of notice,

respondent No.3 has not appeared. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed to that effect.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 had contended that in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi’s case(supra), let the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed by the State Commission in R.A.No.6 of 2023 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear the appeal on its merits, instead of dismissing the appeal for default.

7. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi’s case (supra). Therefore, the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017 is liable to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to hear R.A.No.6 of 2023 on its merits, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017 by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute