Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/15/24

RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGGO - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2016

ORDER

Shri Rajendra Shukla, counsel for petitioner.

Shri A.K. Mishra, counsel for respondent.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

With the consent of counsel for parties the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

Petitioner-Railways have filed this revision petition against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the District Forum, Raisen in C.C. No. 6/14, whereby the petitioner/opposite party have been ordered to be proceed against exparte.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that after service of notice, since relevant documents could not be obtained by the authorities of the Railways, who were liable to arrange for representation in the case, the petitioners failed to appear on the date fixed in the case.  He  further submits

 

that  the default in appearance of petitioners was not deliberate, it  was bonafide, therefore, it deserves to be condoned.

Learned counsel for respondent/complainant submits that it is apparent from the impugned order  that the notices were served on the petitioners on 1.3.2014 and 3.3.2014, respectively, despite that they failed to appear before the Forum on  13.5.2014.  He submits that it was the  duty of the officials of the Railways to intimate the proper authority about the service of notices. It has to be presumed that the notices were served on the on the petitioners.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

It is apparent that the notices were duly served on the petitioners quite in advance and there had been sufficient  time with them to take

 

steps for making appearance before the Forum, but for no reason, they failed to appear.  There appears a casual and careless approach on the part of concerned authority of the petitioners.  However, keeping in view the fact that it would be better to have the dispute adjudicated on merits, we deem it proper to permit the petitioners to appear and defend the case before the Forum on merits, but at the same time, the respondent/ complainant also deserves to be compensated for the delay caused in disposal of the case.

The revision petition is, therefore,  allowed.  The impugned order directing the opposite party to be proceed against exparte, is set aside, however, subject to imposition of cost of Rs.3,500/- to be paid to the respondent/complainant, before the District Forum.

 

 

The District Forum shall grant due opportunity to petitioner/opposite party to defend their case according to law.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 11.5.2016, the date already fixed in the complaint case.