BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD

FA   925 of 2012 against CC 62/2012, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy

Between:

1)  Consumer Protection Council Tamil Nadu

D-53, 2^nd Floor, 8^th Cross

Thillainagar

Tiruchirapalli-620 018

2)  Ms. Unnati Gupta

D/o. Ravi Raj Gupta

Gold Bazar, Back of Masjid

Rajanandgaon

Chattisgarh-491 441                                  ***                         Appellants/

                                                                                                Complainants

And

Vepa Kamesam

Managing Director

Institute of Insurance  &

Risk Management

Plot No. 38/39, APSFC Building

Financial District Gachibowli

Hyderabad-500 032.                                    ***                        Respondent/

Opposite party

Counsel for the  Appellant :                        P.I.P.

Counsel for the  Respondent :                     M/s. P. Sriram.

CORAM:

                              SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

                              SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)

***

1)                Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 62/2012 on the file of Dist. Forum,  Ranga Reddy , the complainants preferred this appeal. 

2)                We observe from the docket order of the Dist. Forum dt.  30.8.2012  that this matter has been dismissed for default as the complainant has failed to file his affidavit evidence  even after availing four opportunities.   

3)                The respondent/opposite party filed written arguments resisting the  appeal.

4)                The appellant/complainant is present in person and submits that  he may be given one more opportunity to file his affidavit  of  evidence.  

5)                It is pertinent to note that  Dist. Forum has no power  to review or set-aside its own order  in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) – Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.  In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held “that District Fora/State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside the ex-parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.  Section 22-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which was inserted on 15.3.2003 has vested power of review or recall the orders, only to the National Commission and it appears that, as this power has been restricted only to the National Commission, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment held that District Fora/State Commissions cannot exercise this power.”

6)                In the light of   the  aforementioned judgement of  the Apex Court and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered  opinion that the complainants may be given  an opportunity to  submit  their affidavit evidence and we set-aside the order of the Dist. Forum and remand this matter  to Dist. Forum to decide the case on merits  after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides.    The Dist. Forum   on receipt of copy of this order  shall  take  immediate steps to issue notices to both sides, as we observe from the record that the  complainants addresses are outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.    Since  this  C.C. is pertaining to the year 2012, the Dist. Forum shall dispose  of the matter  in accordance with law expeditiously. 

7)                In the result  this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently  the  matter is    remanded to Dist. Forum  for denova enquiry and dispose of the matter in accordance with law  expeditiously. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER 

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

28/06/2013

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.