Per Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President
Heard Mr.V.D. Bhavsar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.S.R. Tawde, Chief Law Assistant of respondents. He files authority letter. It is taken on record.
2. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by District Forum, Central Mumbai on 17/07/2012. By this order, complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution.
3. The factual matrix is as follows:-
Complainant No.189/2009 was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Nashik. It was decided on 07/01/2010. Said complaint was partly allowed and therefore, complainant has filed First Appeal No.144/2010 and opponents in the said complaint had also filed First Appeal No.315/2010. Both these appeals were heard together. It was ultimately found that District Forum, Nashik had no territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the order was set aside and by exercising power under Section 17-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer complaint was transferred for further disposal to the District Forum, Central Mumbai. It appears that in the District Forum, Central Mumbai, an application was given by the complainant that he wants to challenge the order of the State Commission and therefore, complaint be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, the complaint was for some time kept undated. But no appeal was filed before the National Commission by the original complainant. Therefore, District Forum, Central Mumbai having seen the same, proceeded with the complaint. However, this complainant remained absent and therefore, complaint was dismissed for default.
4. The ground that he wants to challenge the order of the State Commission before the National Commission is taken. Here the appellant/complainant is taking summersault. On one hand he appeared before the District Forum, Central Mumbai and did not allow the District Forum to proceed with the complaint. Though he desired to approach the National Commission, he did not prefer any Revision Petition till today. Therefore, attempt of the complainant is to keep the complaint pending and to go on protracting the matter and harassing the authorities of the railways. No doubt we have sympathy for the theft of the articles of the complainant, but the complainant should cooperate for early disposal of the case.
5. In the above circumstances, even though we do not find justifiable reason for remaining absent when the District Forum wanted to proceed with the complaint, in the interest of justice, we are remitting the matter to the District Forum. However, conduct of the appellant/complainant is of such type which do not allow us to part with the matter without imposing cost. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17/07/2012 is set aside.
2. Consumer complaint is remitted back to the District Forum, Central Mumbai.
3. Appellant/complainant is hereby directed to pay `2,500/- to the respondents/railway as costs of this appeal and bear his own costs. If the costs are not paid within fifteen days from today, the order passed by the District Forum stands confirmed.
4. District Forum is hereby directed to consider the case on merit without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 18th March 2013.
