(Delivered on  22/12/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.         Appellant- Mr. Nirmaljeetsingh Roopsingh Jassal has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 24/10/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in  Consumer Complaint Case  No.613/2012  by which the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur dismissed in default  the Consumer Complaint  filed by the appellant/complainant.  It is   contended on behalf of the appellant/ complainant that the respondent/O.P. had committed deficiency in service and so the present appellant/complainant had preferred the Consumer Complaint before the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur. It is contended  that  after filing  of the complaint  notice was issued  to the respondent  and respondent  appeared  and also filed  written statement.  It is contended that thereafter the appellant/complainant also filed evidence on affidavit as well as written notes of argument and matter was fixed for oral argument on 24/10/2018.  It is contend  that  on 24/10/2018 the appellant /complainant  was out of station  due to  important  work and so he could not  remain  present but  the learned  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  dismissed in default  the complaint by passing  the impugned  order dated 24/10/2018.

 2.        We have heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/ complainant   and Mr. Pounikar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/O.P.

3.         It is argued by the learned advocate  for the appellant  that  normally  his counsel  used to  conduct the proceedings and the  complainant was  having   no knowledge  regarding dates and  listing  of the matter. It is argued  by the learned  advocate for the appellant that   serious  injustice  would be  caused  to the appellant/complainant if the  matter is not  restored  to file  by  allowing the appeal and setting aside  the impugned  order dated 24/10/2018.

4.         On this aspect we have also heard learned advocate appeared for the respondent and he has strongly opposed the appeal. We have also carefully gone through the records as well as impugned order. On perusal of  record as well as order sheets  it can be  seen  though the complainant  had filed  the Consumer Complaint  but  thereafter  the complainant  was  not  present  on every date of  hearing and therefore the matter was getting  adjourned  for  time to time. Record itself  go to show that  the  Consumer Complaint  was filed by the complainant in the year 2012 but  the complainant  has not  taken adequate  steps  to  pursue the complaint  and also  remained  absent.  However, it can be seen  from the  record that the complainant  have  not only  filed the Consumer Complaint  but thereafter   had also  filed  evidence  on  affidavit on record as well as  written notes of argument.  In such  circumstances  we feel  that  due  opportunity  needs to be granted  to the appellant/ complainant  for  adjudication  of the  complaint  filed by  him on its  merits .  So far as aspect of the absence of the appellant/complainant for a long time is concerned suitable costs can be saddled on the appellant /complainant. As such we pass the following order.      

ORDER

1. Appeal is partly allowed.   
2. Order dated 24/10/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is hereby set aside subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent within a period of two weeks from receipt  of order.
3. On payment of cost the complaint shall be restored to the file.
4. Both parties shall  appear before the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur on 24/01/2023.
5. The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is hereby directed to dispose of the complaint as early as possible as per law.
6. Copy of order be furnished to both of parties, free of cost.