1. This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 09.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 462 of 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 09.04.2019 and the memorandum of appeal. 3. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 09.04.2019 dismissed the complaint after observing thus: “Counsel for OP has already moved an application for dismissal of complaint on the ground that complainant has already transferred the property in the name of Harpal Singh Panwar. Copy of endorsement dated 23.01.2018 in that regard is at page-4 of the application. In view of the same, the complainant is no more Consumers. The complaint is dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said transfer of the property in the name of Harpal Singh Panwar is a transfer between son and father. Submission is that under the Consumer Protection Act, the circumstances under which this property stood transferred will not make the complaint not maintainable. Learned counsel has tried to make many submissions assailing the impugned Order, its nature and its untenability and also elaborated on provisions of the Act in order to show that the said transfer shall remain inconsequential for the purpose of maintainability or non-maintainability of the complaint. But what has been much emphasized is that the order has been passed at the back of the complainant as his counsel appeared a few minutes late before the State Commission and by the time the appellant’s counsel reached the Order had already been passed. Submission is that the application that was moved on behalf of the opposite party did not have any merits and had opportunity of hearing being provided to complainant or his counsel the order passed by fora below would have been in all likelihood otherwise. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed the fact that while passing the Order neither the complainant nor his counsel was heard. Learned counsel has been gracious enough to adopt a fair approach and does not raise any serious objection if the matter is remitted back providing opportunity to the complainant to address the bench for the purpose of passing the Order on its merits again. 5. This Commission at this stage does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of the case lest it may go to prejudice the mind of the State Commission. Suffice it to say that the submissions made by counsel for appellant cannot be said to be wholly without substance. This bench, therefore, deems it fit to set aside the impugned Order and remand back the matter to the State Commission to be heard afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant side and adjudicate upon the issue involved after considering the submissions and objections as may be raised by both sides. 9. Sequel to above discussion the Order dated 09.04.2019 of the State Commission is set aside. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the maintainability of the matter on its merits afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunities to the parties. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 13.09.2023. 10. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. It 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. |