Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is present.

          None appears on behalf of the opposite party.

          In this revision prayer has been made by the revision petitioner to set aside the order dated 8.2.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Bhadrak restoring C.D.Case No. 22 of 2017 which was dismissed for default by order dated 16.1.2019.

          Considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the impugned order has apparently been passed arbitrarily, revision petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

          Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

          By a reasoned order passed on 16.1.2019 C.D.Case No.22 of 2017 was dismissed for default. Order dated 16.1.2019 at Annexure – 1 to the revision petition reads as follows:-

“Advocate for complainant files a petition praying for time. Advocate for O.Ps files hazira. Advocate for complainant found absent on repeated calls and does not prefer to move the time petition filed by him. Hence the time petition so filed by the complainant is Rejected.

On perusal of record it is found that complainant is absent on eight dates after institution of the case & last chance was allowed for hearing on today. It presumes that complainant is no more interested to proceed with the case. It is an old pending case of the year 2017. As such the complaint is dismissed for the default of complainant & for non-prosecution.”

          Revision petitioner representing Electricity Distribution Company NESCO is the opposite party whereas the opposite party in this revision petition is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

Opposite party/complainant filed application for restoration of the complaint on 17.1.2019. Revision petitioner filed objection to the petition for restoration in which it was contended, inter alia that District Forum has no jurisdiction to recall an earlier order dismissing complaint for default and restore the complaint in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission. In passing the impugned order, the learned District Forum has made no reference to the decisions cited on behalf of the revision petitioner. The impugned order dated 8.2.2019 in its entirety reads as follows:-

“Perused the petition dt.17.01.2019 filed by complainant to recall the order dt.16.01.2019 and objection thereon filed by O.Ps.

Prior to taking a decision we are to decide whether this Forum is empowered to recall/set aside his own order which was disposed of due to default of complainant.

Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 14.Limitaiton – 1(ii)

“Application for setting aside the ex-parte order under section 22A or dismissal of complainant in default shall be maintainable if filed within thirty days from the date of order or date of receipt of order, as the case may be.”

On perusal of record it is found that the application has been filed on 17.01.2019 after one day of order.

The very object of setting up Consumer Fora is to provide speedy remedy to a consumer. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) was brought about in the background of worldwide movement for consumer protection.

Under such circumstances we feel this is a fit case to be restored to dispose of on the merit of the petition. As such both parties are hereby directed to be present on 27.02.209 positively without fail for final hearing of the case on merit.

Accordingly the petition filed by the complainant is allowed and order dtd. 16.01.2019 is recalled. Issue extract of the order to both parties for their information and necessary action.”

While passing an order a quasi judicial authority like District Forum is required to consider the rival submissions and contentions including legal provisions and judicial decisions relied upon by the parties. The impugned order on the face of it does not indicate that the District Forum has considered the objection to the recall petition filed on behalf of the revision petitioner. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily is not unfounded.

Since the impugned order has been passed without reference to the grounds taken in the objection and without consideration of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission cited by the revision petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.2.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Bhadrak in C.D.Case No. 22 of 2017 is set aside.

The learned District Forum is directed to pass an order afresh on the application for restoration of the  C.D.Case filed by the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in the light of observations made above.