Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/144/2022

Umashankar Thapliyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magager Director, Hotel Rajpur Hight - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Parvendra Kumar

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 / 2022

 

Sh. Uma Shankar Thapliyal S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Thapliyal

R/o Pant Mohalla, Danda Lakhond, Near I.T. Park

Sahastradhara Road, District Dehradun

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

Managing Director, Hotel Rajpur Heights

23/17, Old Mussoorie Road, Near Shahanshahi Ashram

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

…… Respondent / Opposite Party

 

Sh. Pervender Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                       Member-II

                             

Dated: 04/08/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 545 of 2021; Sh. Uma Shankar Thapliyal Vs. Managing Director, Hotel Rajpur Heights, by which the consumer complaint has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

 

2.       Heard learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage and perused the record.  The consumer complaint was dismissed by learned District Commission for want of prosecution and on the date of passing of the impugned order, the appellant – complainant was not present before the District Commission, whereas the respondent – opposite party was duly represented.  The consumer complaint was fixed for complainant’s evidence.  It was observed by the District Commission that neither the complainant has been appearing, nor he is submitting the evidence on his behalf.  As such, the consumer complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution.

 

3.       Since the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission for want of prosecution and hence there shall also be no prejudice caused to the respondent, in case the appeal is decided without hearing the respondent, for the simple reason that the consumer complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution and the respondent may be compensated by way of costs.

 

4.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant – complainant is sick / not maintaining good health since long, on account whereof, he is unable to walk, with the result that he could not appear before the District Commission, nor could contact his counsel.  In support of his submission, learned counsel drew our attention towards different medical certificates of the appellant.

 

5.       We find substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intentional laches on the part of the appellant – complainant in not appearing before the District Commission the date fixed.  It is settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical one.  In the interest of justice, consumer complaint should be decided on its merit after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.  Since on the date of passing the impugned order, the respondent was present before the District Commission and hence the respondent may be compensated by way of costs, which we quantify to Rs. 1,000/-.

 

6.       For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant to the respondent.  Impugned order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside.  The District Commission is directed to restore the consumer complaint at its original number.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 01.09.2022, by which date, the above costs shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent.  In case the respondent does not appear before the District Commission on the date fixed, the District Commission shall issue notice to the respondent, calling for its appearance and thereafter shall decide the consumer complaint on its merit expeditiously as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.              

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                               President

 

K