1.       This revision has been filed under section section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 06.01.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no.256 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 07.05.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 26 of 2004.

2.   Submission of the petitioner’s / complainant’s counsel is pointed and precise. It has been contended that the impugned Order dated 06.01.2009 has been passed without hearing the counsel representing the complainant before the State Commission. The learned counsel has tried to explain the situation under which the counsel representing the complainant before the State Commission did not appear. Submission is that a valuable right of the petitioner / complainant has been prejudiced as the impugned Order has been passed in his absence.

3.   Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and for the respondent no.2 submit that there is no valid reason to explain why the counsel representing the complainant did not appear in the State Commission and if the petitioner / complainant or his counsel was not diligent enough to pursue the matter in right earnest, it is to blame for itself.

4.   Pursued the record including inter alia the impugned Order and considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties. After perusal of the impugned Order dated 06.01.2009, it shows that the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 herein – Mahindra & Mahindra was allowed
ex-parte by the State Commission and as such valuable rights of the petitioner / complainant to address the Court and to pursue his matter have been detrimentally affected.  

5.   Keeping in view the above, without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered view that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the petitioner / complainant to address the Court and to purse his case before the State Commission. The impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission for hearing the same after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides after issuing notices to them.

The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case in right earnest showing due diligence before the State Commission and to ensure that he is present / represented to argue his case as and when the appeal is listed for arguments afresh by the State Commission. It goes without saying that if still the complainant fails to do so, it will be open to the State Commission to proceed further in accordance with law in its wisdom in order to decide the appeal on merit.

6.   The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.09.2023.

7.   This is an old matter pertains to the year 2004. It is indeed desirable that the matter should be taken to its logical end with utmost dispatch. The State Commission, is therefore, requested to take up this mater as most urgent on priority basis and decide the same at the earliest.

8.    The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.