APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellants : Mr. Sabyasachi Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Santwana, Advocate For the Respondent no.2 : Ms. Nitu Mittal, Advocate For the Respondent no.3 : Mr. J. P. N. Shahi, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 7th MAY 2018 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.01.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 81/2012, filed by the present appellants, vide which the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The order passed by the State Commission reads as follows:- “No one present on behalf of complainants. Counsel for the non-complainant No. 1 Shri Ravindra Jain present, counsel for the non-complainant no. 2 Shri Aaditya Mitruka present, Counsel for the non-complainant no. 3 Shri Atul Pareek present. Complainant advocate is also absent in last date. Complaint dismissed on non-prosecution.” Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents/Opposite Parties (OPs) who put in appearance through their respective counsels.The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants stated that on the date of hearing before the State Commission, i.e., 03.01.2017, the Advocate engaged by them, did not put in appearance, nor the said Advocate informed the appellants about the matter.The learned counsel stated that the complainants should not be made to suffer due to the fault of their Advocate.The learned counsel further stated that due to leakage of gas from the LPG gas cylinder, there was fire, which resulted in severe burn injuries to the complainants.The elder brother of complainant no. 1 and his mother died as a result of injuries in the incident.They should, therefore, be permitted to pursue the consumer complaint on merits before the State Commission and hence, the impugned order should be set aside. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 gas agency has drawn attention to copies of the orders recorded by the State Commission and stated that the counsel for the complainants did not attend hearings on four consecutive dates.There was, therefore, no justification for allowing them to proceed with the consumer complaint. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2017 and copies of the orders shown by the learned counsel for respondents during arguments, makes it clear that the counsel for the complainants did not attend hearings before the State Commission on a number of occasions.No valid explanation has been forthcoming for his non-appearance before the State Commission.However, the appellants/complainants have taken the plea that they should not be made to suffer, on account of the fault of their counsel.The appellants/complainants have also stated that they had to suffer huge loss, as a result of the fire incident, caused due to the leakage of the gas.They also lost some of their family members in the incident.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt necessary in the interest of justice that the matter should be allowed to be examined on merits, in order to find out, if there was any deficiency in service etc. on the part of the opposite parties.I also tend to agree with the contention raised by the appellants/complainants that they should not be made to suffer on account of fault on the part of their counsel.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.01.2017 passed by the State Commission is set aside. The State Commission is directed to issue notice to the parties and decide the consumer complaint in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead appropriate evidence in their favour. There shall be no order as to costs. |
