ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by an Airlines, namely, Spice Jet Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.370 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the District -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East Government of NCT of Delhi (for short ‘the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.485 of 2014, in default as it had remained unrepresented on two dates, viz. 24.07.2017 and 30.10.2017 when the Appeal was taken up for consideration. Upon notice, the Complainant is present in person. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the sole cause for non-appearance of the Counsel, duly engaged by the Petitioner, before the State Commission was on account of wrong recording of the date of hearing in the diary of the lawyer and as a matter of fact on realizing the mistake a proxy counsel did appear in the Commission on the latter date but by that time the impugned order had already been made. In support, learned Counsel referred us to the copies of the case diary maintained by the lawyer. It is thus, pleaded that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of the omission, if any, on the part of its lawyer. Per contra, the Complainant, who appears in person, submits that the Petitioner has been negligent since the filing of the Complaint, in as much as it was not duly represented even before the District Forum and the final order by the District Forum was passed in its absence. It is thus, asserted that the Petition deserves to be dismissed. -3- Having perused the documents on record, including the endorsement by the Commission on its order dated 30.10.2017, to the effect that around 12:40 p.m., the proxy Counsel for the Counsel, engaged in the matter, had appeared and had made a mention of the case, but by that time the Appeal had already been dismissed, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of an opportunity to have its say on the merits of the Appeal before the State Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the afore-noted Appeal is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits, subject to the Petitioner’s paying to the Complainant costs of ₹5,000/-, which shall be paid before the State Commission. These costs shall be in addition to the travel and allied expenses, paid today to the Complainant. Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.04.2018 for further proceedings. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. |
