Delhi

North East

CC/514/2014

Mohd. Arif - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 514/14

 

In the matter of:

 

Shri Mohd. Arif

S/o Shri Nizamuddin,

R/o H. No. F-198, S-3/2F,

Dilshad Colony, Near Seemapuri Bus Depot,

New Delhi – 110 095.                                                                           Complainant

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Marg,

Vasant Kunj, Phase – 11, New Delhi – 110 070.

Also at:

Circle office: Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

D-184, Okhla Industrial Area – 1,

New Delhi – 110 020.

Also at:

Circle Office: H-5/12, Qutub Ambience,

Mehrouli Road, New Delhi – 110 030.                                            Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:              ORDER RESERVED ON:                DATE OF ORDER:

05.10.2021 25.10.2021 09.11.2021

CORAM:

Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Shri Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

This Order shall dispose off the application dated 01.10.2021 filed by the Complainant under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Consumer Act).  

 

2.         Briefly stated the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the said application are as under:-

 The Complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  By order dated 16.05.2019, the complaint filed by the Complainant was dismissed for non-appearance of the Complainant.  In the impugned order, it was also observed that the Complainant did not appear for the five consecutive dates and on this account, the complaint was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the Complainant. 

3.         The Complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2019 and he has filed the present application for restoration of the complaint.  We have already heard Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the file. 

4.         It was submitted by the Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant that the non-appearance of the Applicant/Complainant was not deliberate or intentional as he was misguided by the Opposite Party.  It was submitted that his Advocate assured him that he would appear before the Forum and would pursue the matter.  He was misguided by the Opposite Party as he was assured by the Opposite Party that matter would be settled.   It was also submitted that the Applicant/Complainant was not keeping well and however, he was in regular touch of his Advocate, but he was kept in dark.  Thereafter, the pandemic started and under these circumstances, he could not appear in the court.  On 03.02.2020, the Applicant/Complainant inspected the file and came to know regarding the dismissal of his complaint.  It was submitted by the Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant that even otherwise order of dismissal dated 16.05.2019 passed by this Forum is not legal as the complaint was dismissed by the sole Member of the Forum and on this account also, the complaint is liable to be restored.  In support of his contention, the Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant has relied upon a judgment dated 19.08.2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr in Civil Appeal no. 4307 of 2007. 

5.         The Applicant /Complainant is seeking restoration of his complaint under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The perusal of Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 shows that it provides the power to the District Commission to review its order if there is any error apparent on the face of record.  The Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force in the month of July, 2020.  Therefore, it is clear that on the date i.e. 16.05.2019 when the impugned order was passed, the present Consumer Act of 2019 was not in force.  Hence, the Applicant/Complainant cannot take the benefit of Section 40 of the Consumer Act 2019.  The judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the Applicant accused /Complainant has no relevance to the facts of the present application.

6.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the application is not maintainable under Section 40 of the Consumer Act 2019 and the same is dismissed accordingly.   

Copy of this Order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                                   (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                          (President)

 

sd