Ravi Saxena v/s V. Travel Expertz

03.02.2023                                                            RA/1/23

1. Vide this order we shall be decide the application filed by the complainant to revive his complaint which had be dismissal in default.

2. In his Review application the complainant states that his complaint was put up for 1^st hearing via VC on 27.01.2021 in which Notice’s were issued to the OP and the next date of hearing was 05.04.2021 after which it was fixed for June, 2021. The complainant alleges that neither the dates were clear not any information/hearing link was provided to the complainant or his counsel. The complainant states he tried to inquire about the same with the admn. Office of the Forum. The status of the complaint was still not updated or showing any details of hearing held. The complainant has annexed the printout of online status as Annexure-1.

3. The complainant thereafter approached the Hon’ble National Commission to find out the status of his complaint and redirected to the District Commission when the complainant came to the Commission, he states, that the hearing were not being conducted due to admn. reasons. His Ld. Counsel then allegedly visited the Forum on 27.09.2022 seeking update and was given the dasti notice to be served to the OPs. He left without any information on as to the next date and only after the concerned officer told him that the cause list could be uploaded on the website on or before 06.10.2022. When the complainant checked the cause list on 14.10.2022 he found the missing “Not found” and therefore the counsel could not appear before the Commission (Annexure-2). The counsels of the complainant then visited the Forum on 29.11.2022 seeking update on their case and who given the certified copy of the order in which his complaint had been dismissed for Non-Appearance on 14.10.2022 (Annexure-3).

4. We have heard the complainant and have carefully perused the documents filed by him. A bare perusal of the order sheets complainant’s original complaint clarifies that the present complaint was admitted on 27.01.2021. OP-4 was deleted from the array of parties as recorded on 05.04.2021 and file fresh notices issued to OP-1 & 2 and complaint copy supplied to OP-3 in the presence of Mr. Neeraj who appeared for the complaint on 05.04.2021.

5. Thereafter neither the complainant nor his Ld. Counsels appeared before this Commission to file proof of service qua OP-1 & 2 on 08.11.2021.

On 14.01.2022, the Forum was closed in view of the Covid Pandemic and matter adjourned to next date.

6. On 06.07.2022, counsel for OP-3 appeared after having filed the reply on record however again neither the Complainant nor his counsels appeared nor collected the same form the registry. On 30.08.2022 notice was issued to the complainant to appear on the next date fixed i.e. 06.10.2022 as the complainant had not been appearing for the last several dates. Despite issue of the notice the complainant still did not appear on date fixed.

In the interest of justice, the Commission gave another opportunity to the complainant or his counsel to appear before the Commission on 14.10.2022 to no avail.

7. Hence, when the complainant/Ld. Counsel chose not to appear before the Commission despite notice and several opportunities having being granted the Commission dismissed the complaint in default as our opinion adequate time was given to the complainant and his Ld. Counsel to appear before this Commission from 08.11.2021 to 14.10.2022 i.e. almost a year.

8. We feel one year is sufficient time for the complainant or his counsel to enquire about the status of his Complaint and approach the bench as the Commission was fully functional from July, 2022 in physical mode.

9. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clarifies the provision of hearing a review application and status as under:

Section 40. Review by District Commission in certain cases.

"The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”

10. In our considered view, there is no error apparent in the order passed by this Commission which gave sufficient time of almost 1 year to the complainant or his counsel to approach the Commission and enquire regarding the status of his case. Furthermore, willfully choosing not to present himself before the Commission gives sufficient grounds for dismissal of the complaint in default under the Act for Non-appearance.

11. Hence, in light of the above discussion the present review application is dismissed without cost.

Copy of the order be given as dasti.

File be consigned to record room thereafter.