Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/107/2022

Rajkumar Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sectrary, Ganna Samiti - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Munish Kumar

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 107 / 2022

 

Sh. Rajkumar Tyagi S/o Sh. Tarachand Tyagi

R/o Village Chudiyala Mohanpur

P.O. Chudiyala, District Haridwar  

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

Secretary, Ganna Samiti

Iqbalpur, Office at Railway Road

Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar

…… Respondent / Opposite Party

 

Sh. Munish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 05/07/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 247 of 2019; Sh. Rajkumar Tyagi Vs. Secretary, Ganna Samiti, by which the consumer complaint has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

 

2.       Heard learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage.  The consumer complaint was dismissed by learned District Commission for want of prosecution and on the date of passing of the impugned order, neither the appellant – complainant, nor the respondent – opposite party, were present before learned District Commission.  Since the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission for want of prosecution and both the parties were absent on the said date, hence there shall also be no prejudice caused to the respondent, in case the appeal is decided without hearing the respondent, for the simple reason that the consumer complaint came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

 

3.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no intentional laches on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter before the District Commission and that the appellant was duly prosecuting the consumer complaint before the District Commission.  He further submitted that there was sufficient cause for                  non-appearance on behalf of the appellant before the District Commission on the date fixed.  He has also submitted that the appellant had filed the written arguments before the District Commission, as would be evident from order-sheet dated 10.12.2021.  He has further submitted that on 06.06.2022, i.e., on the date of passing the impugned order by the District Commission, he had appeared before the District Commission on 11:28 a.m., but by the said time, the consumer complaint was dismissed by the District Commission for want of prosecution.  He has lastly submitted that since the appellant – complainant had filed the written arguments, hence the District Commission ought to have decided the consumer complaint on merit and the same should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution.

 

4.       We find substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.  In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that there was also no representation on behalf of the appellant – complainant on 30.03.2022, the last date fixed in the consumer complaint.  The   order-sheet of the said date shows that on the said date, there was resolution of the Bar Association on account of elections and, as such, the lawyers were abstaining from work and the matter was adjourned to 06.06.2022.  We also find from the record that the respondent was also not present before the District Commission on the date, when the impugned order came to be passed and, as is stated above, there shall be no prejudice caused to the respondent in case the present appeal is disposed of without hearing the respondent.  In the memo of appeal, it has been specifically mentioned that learned counsel for the appellant reached the District Commission on 11:28 a.m., but by that time, the consumer complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution.  Thus, it can not be said that there were any intentional laches on the part of the appellant – complainant in prosecuting the consumer complaint before the District Commission, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant – complainant had already submitted the written arguments before the District Commission.  It is settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical one.  In the interest of justice, consumer complaint should be decided on its merit after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

 

5.       For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.  Impugned order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside.  The District Commission is directed to restore the consumer complaint at its original number.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 01.08.2022.  In case the respondent does not appear before the District Commission on the date fixed, the District Commission shall issue notice to the respondent, calling for its appearance and thereafter shall decide the consumer complaint on its merit expeditiously as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.  Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.  No order as to costs.              

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K