R.P.No. 23 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.78 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER  ADILABAD

Between

The Director

                                                Revision Petitioner/opposite party no.1

1.     aged 27 years, R/o Soma Gardens R/o                                            Respondent/complainant

2.   Managing Director
Through CMO Area Hospital,
                                                Respondent/opposite party no.2

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner         M/s Counsel for the Respondent                   M/s   

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

        TUESDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER     

                                TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri

***

1.             The opposite party no.1 is the Revision Petition, the Revision is directed against the order dated 12.12.2012 whereby the revision petitioner was set 2.             The Revision Petitioner has submitted that the District Forum ought to have given some reasonable time to the revision petitioner before setting it     3.             The petitioner has submitted that the complainant in CC No.78 of 2012 filed a frivolous complaint alleging negligence on the part of the revision petitioner and claimed compensation of `18 lakhs and in order to elicit the truth the institute cannot be gone into unless the institute is provided with reasonable opportunity to put-forth its case before the Forum.

4.             The respondents have not chosen to file counter.

5.             The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside?

6.             The revision petitioner engaging the advocate Sri Rahim and handing over   The revision petitioner has taken all reasonable steps to see that it is represented on 12.12.2012 before the District Forum.  Unfortunately, for the reasons said to have been beyond his control, the advocate whom the revision petitioner engaged could not represent the petitioner on 12.12.2012 before the District Forum and consequently the District Forum set the revision petitioner  

7.             The revision petitioner has submitted that for the lapse on the part of its advocate, the petitioner cannot be penalised.  Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the complaint filed before the District Forum is frivolous and much of the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be gone into unless the petitioner is given reasonable opportunity.  We find sufficient cause for the revision petitioner for not making its appearance on 12.12.2012 before the District forum. 

8.             By   the said  application, no prejudice  would be caused to respondent no.1.  We believe   setting aside the   would be in the interests of furtherance  of justice.

        In the result the Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.  No costs.

                                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                             Dt.08.10.2013

కె.ఎం.కె*