11-12-2015 - Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose –vs- M. Aby & ors.

2. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate who also appears for the O.P. – Respondent is present in the Commission. Since it is a short matter, he was requested to appear in this case and argue on behalf of the Respondent. He agreed to this. He was given some time to look into the case.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2012 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Complainant has lost all his interest to proceed with the case.

4. Heard the parties on the prayer for condoning the delay of about two years and nine months in filing this appeal.

5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the copy of the impugned order was prepared on 16.10.2015 and prior to that it was not provided to the Complainant nor he had knowledge of the dismissal of the complaint. Only when he contacted another advocate and obtained entire order-sheet, he knew about the dismissal of the complaint.

Further the order dated 24.08.2011 will show that both sides appeared and argued the case and the case was fixed for orders on 13.09.2011 and, therefore, the final order should have been passed in the complaint case and it should not have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

6. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee submitted that he is not in a position to dispute the said position, but it is clear that the Complainant was not interested in this case. If the order was reserved on 24.08.2011, he should have taken care to know about the next date(s) in the case and should have inquired about the orders passed in the case.

7. It appears that on 24.08.2011 both sides appeared and argued the case and the case was fixed for orders on 13.09.2011.

Thereafter, there was no quorum for a long time. The Complainant appeared on 30.04.2012, but thereafter he did not appear and ultimately the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.12.2012.

8. Thus it appears that the Complainant is not diligent at all. After the order dated 24.08.2011, he should have inquired about the orders passed in the case.

9. However, in the interest of justice, one chance is given to the Complainant – Appellant but on payment of costs

10. In the result the following order is passed. (i) The delay in filing this appeal is condoned. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.12.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back. (iii) This order is subject to deposit of a cost of Rs. 10,000/-by the Complainant in favour of the O.P. – Respondent in the District Forum, within four weeks from today. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 11.01.2016 when the learned Consumer Forum fix the date(s) and will hear the case in accordance with law. (v) Since it is an old matter, the parties will co-operate in early disposal of the case and will not take unnecessary adjournment. (vi) It is made clear that if any party fails to appear on the date fixed, the learned District Forum will fix the case for ex-parte hearing and will proceed accordingly.

          Thus this appeal stands disposed off.

Let a copy of this order be issued to the parties.

 Ranchi,

Dated:- 11-12-2015