District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001 Miscellaneous Petition(MP) No. MP/10/1
Sh Malkit Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
19-04-2020 Present : Sh. Rajan Sharma, counsel for the applicant Sh.Abhey Singla,counsel for respondent No.1. Sh.Navjot Singh,counsel for respondent No.2. Heard arguments on the application. This is an application which has been moved by the complainant for restoration of complaint titled Malkit Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & another, on the ground that complaint was fixed on 05-03-2010 and on that date, the same was adjourned for 15-03-2020 but due to some inadvertance and accidental omission, complainant and his counsel, mistook the date of hearing as 18-03-2010. On 15-03-2010. the case was adjourned to 16-03-2010 on which date, it was dismissed in default due to non-appearance. The opposite parties filed reply of the application and submitted that applicant has concocted false story to make ground for filing the application and there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act for restoration of the complaint. We have perused the record. Both the parties have concluded their evidence. Complaint case in question is at the stage of final arguments. If the application is allowed at this stage, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, in the case M/s. Shree Ram Steel Udyog Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain and Others 1992(2) CPC 394, wherein it has been held that :- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 & 13 Dismissal in default- Power of restoration complainant could not reach in time to prosecute his case on account of traffic jam. His complaint was dismissed in default but was restored by District Forum as it found a reasonable ground for complainant's absence It was argued in appeal that District Forum has no power of restoration of complaint under the Act The contention is without any force- Consumer for a like any other Quasi Judicial Tribunal are competent to restore the case- power to dismiss in default includes power to restore the case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice this application is accepted and the complaint is directed to be restored at its original number 346 of 12-11-2009. Member Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
