Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/182

JAHER AHMED SHIKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE COURIER SERVIS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 13.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.40/2018 by the District Commission, Dewas)

 

JAHEER AHMED.                                                                                                    …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

PROP.RELIANCE COURIER SERVICES & ORS.                                              …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

30.09.2020

 

          Shri K. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

           

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :            

                         Heard learned counsel for appellant on IA-1, application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal.

2.                     This appeal is filed after delay of 18 days.  On due consideration of IA-1 and after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, IA-1, is allowed and delay is condoned.

3.                     Also heard finally.

4.                     This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dewas (For short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.40/2018 whereby the District Commission dismissed the complainant’s complaint because of non-appearance of the complainant/appellant on the date fixed before the District Commission.

5.                     Learned counsel for appellant/complainant submits that the complainant himself was suffering from liver disease and the counsel for the complainant was out of station for some judicial work.  Therefore neither he nor his counsel could appear on the

-2-

date fixed for hearing before the District Commission. The case was thus dismissed by the District Commission, due to non-appearance of the complainant, on the said date.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on due consideration of appeal, we find that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of complainant/appellant before the District Commission on the date fixed for hearing.  We have also considered the medical prescription of the complainant/appellant, dated 11.12.2019 which is there on record.  We are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be decided on merits. Therefore, we allow this appeal and the case is remanded to the District Commission for decision afresh.

7.                     The complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.10.2020. The District Commission is directed to restore the complaint case and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the opposite parties.

8.                     With the aforesaid directions, the impugned order is set-aside. This appeal stands allowed.

 

                   (Dr. Monika Malik)                             (S. S. Bansal)           

                    Presiding Member                                 Member