Haryana

StateCommission

A/1102/2016

RAM MEHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBHASH CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP LATHAR

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 1102 of 2016

Date of Institution: 18.11.2016

Date of Decision : 09.01.2017

 

Ram Mehar son of Sh. Harkesh, resident of Village Harigarh, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Subhash Chand Ajay Kumar, Safidon Mandi, Safidon, District Jind through its proprietor.

2.      M/s Bayer Crop Science Limited C/o BCS, Hisar 4^th, Mile Bapu Asharam Hisar, District Hisar.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Ram Mehar-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint No.70 dated June 19^th, 2010 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short, ‘District Forum’).  The complaint was dismissed in default on August 12^th, 2016.  The complainant filed fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the District Forum on September 22^nd, 2016 averring that he could not appear on August 12^th, 2016 because he was being represented by a counsel, who did not appear on that date and the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the short ground that second complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum in view of the fact that earlier complaint was dismissed in default.     

3.      The District Forum by referring Civil Appeal No.936 of 2013, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor, 2013(2), CLT, 5, Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007, Rajeev Hitender Pathak and others Vs. Achyut Kashinath and Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2011, M.O.H leathers Vs. United Commercial Bank also observed that entertaining the complaint would amount to review its earlier order dated August 12^th, 2016 whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.  The District Forum has also taken into consideration Indian Machinery Company Vs. M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Limited, Civil Appeal No.557 of 2016, decided on January 27^th, 2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but wrongly interpreted it.   In Indian Machinery Company (supra), the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non-prosecution.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that second complaint filed by the complainant was maintainable because it was explained by the complainant why the earlier complaint could not be pursued by him and was dismissed in default.

4.      In view of the legal position enunciated above and the facts of the case that complainant has explained the reason of his non appearance before the District Forum on August 12^th, 2016 that he was under impression that his counsel would appear before the District Forum but he did not appear for one reason or the other for which complainant could not be blamed at all.  Thus, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the District Forum is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.  

5.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 09.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK