Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/87

NITESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AJAY VISHWAKARMA

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 04.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.07/2021 by the District Commission, Katni)

 

AKASH GUPTA.                                                                                                  …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

SENIOR BRANCH/OFFICER,

SAHARA INDIA KATNI & ANR.                                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

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

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

28.02.2022

 

          Shri R. K. Kaimaithiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

           

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :            

                         This appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is directed against the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Katni (For short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.07/2021 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complainant’s complaint for want of prosecution because of non-appearance of the complainant/appellant on the date fixed before the District Commission.

2.                     The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties in not giving the maturity amount, with interest on FDRs. The District Commission vide order dated 04.01.2022 dismissed the complaint in absence of the complainant.

3.                     Heard.

4.                     Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that as per Section 36(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the ‘Act’), on receipt of complaint,

-2-

the admissibility of the complaint is decided within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was filed and as per Section 36(3) of the Act, the complaint shall be deemed to have admitted, where the District Commission does not decide the issue of admissibility of the complaint within the period so specified.  He argued that the complainant/appellant on 31.08.2021 had requested the District Commission to admit his complaint case citing aforesaid rules & regulations, but the District Commission ignored the aforesaid important aspect and dismissed the complaint on further date.  He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the matter be remanded back to the District Commission for decision on merits.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on going through the appeal memo and accompanying documents, we find that the District Commission vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution on the ground that the complainant is not present to argue on the question of admission but also has concurrently held that the complaint is immature. We find that the complainant in compliance of the directions of the District Commission had earlier presented certain documents and had regularly appeared before the District Commission. In our considered view the District Commission ought to have either dismissed the complaint case earlier or to have proceeded further in the matter, considering the provisions contained in Section 36 of the Act.

6.                     The impugned order is therefore set-aside and the case is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh, in accordance with law.

7.                     The complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the District Commission on 06.05.2022. The District Commission is directed to restore the complaint case to its original number and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the opposite parties.

-3-

8.                     All the contentions in the matter are kept open, including the one regarding maintainability.

9.                     With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

 

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

                    Presiding Member                                 Member