1.   This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 14.01.2020 of the State Commission in complaint no. 514 of 2019.

2.   Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, learned counsel appears for the appellant (the ‘complainant’).

Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, learned proxy counsel appears for respondent no. 1 (the ‘manufacturer’). He submits that he has instructions to make submissions on behalf of the manufacturer.

No one appears for the respondent no. 2 (the ‘dealer’).

3.   We have heard the learned counsel present and have perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 14.01.2020.

The said Order is reproduced below for ready reference:

On 19.12.2019 learned counsel for the complainant sought time to argue the case as relevant documents were not provided to him and it was specifically mentioned that it was not the duty of this Commission to provide the documents to the counsel at his residence, it is the duty of the counsel and the complainant that they collect the documents and be present when the case is called on the date fixed. However, on request of the counsel, adjournment was given, subject to cost of Rs.1500/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission before the date fixed.

2. As per report of the Registry, cost of Rs.1500/- has not been deposited by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant prays for deposit of the cost today itself. The said prayer of the complainant cannot be accepted and the time cannot be extended as it will amount to review of our own order and we have no power to recall our own order. The position has been made clear by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held in “Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar &Anr.” IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) that neither the State Commission nor District Forum has, under the provisions of the Act, the power to review/recall/modify an order passed by it. That proposition of law was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Lucknow Development Authority v. Shyam Kapoor” 2013(1) CPR 597 (SC).

3. Since the cost has not been deposited and compliance of the order has not been made, which was condition precedent to adjourn the case, the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed on this ground.

4.   A reading shows that adjournment was granted to the complainant subject to cost of Rs.1500/- to be deposited in the consumer legal aid account of the State Commission within a specified time-period. The complainant could not deposit the said cost within the stipulated period. Though he was prepared to deposit the same on the date of hearing itself, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on ground that it did not have the power to review its own order, that is, it did not have the power to extend the time-period to make the deposit since it would be tantamount to reviewing its own order. 

5.   Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the pleadings and evidence had been completed and the complaint was at the stage of final hearing. The complainant was prepared to deposit the cost on the date of hearing itself, but was not permitted to do so. Submission is that the dismissal of the complaint on a hyper-technical ground at the stage of final hearing without taking a decision on merit was unfair to the complainant and would result in miscarriage of justice. 

Learned proxy counsel for the manufacturer submits that he has no submissions to make, this Commission may take a decision. 

6.   We are of the considered view that in the facts and specificities of the case, in which the pleadings had been completed and the evidence had been taken, the matter ought to be heard and decided on merit rather than dismissed for not depositing a cost of just Rs.1500/- within a stated period. In the present facts and limited context, we do not feel the need to examine the power of review of the State Commission at any great length. It would suffice to note that in the circumstances we find it conscionable, just and desirable to set aside the impugned order so that the case may be decided on merit by the State Commission.

7.   We may add that we have refrained from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter so as not to color the vision of the forum below since it has as yet to decide the case on merit.

8.   Sequel to the above we set aside the Order dated 14.01.2020 of the State Commission and restore the case to its original number before the State Commission. The State Commission is requested to decide the case on merit as per the law. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.12.2022. Cost of Rs.1500/- may be deposited by the complainant with the consumer legal aid account of the State Commission before 31.12.2022.  

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel within three days. The Registry is also requested to forthwith communicate this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.