C.B.MALHOTRA vs TELECOM GENERAL MANAGER, AMBALA CANTT.

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9th of August, 1994, by which the District Forum, Ambala, dismissed the application for restoration of complaint which was dismissed in default on 14th of June, 1994. Learned District Forum has relied upon decision of the National Commission reported as 1994(1) C.P.C. 140, General Manager, Telecom, Rajkot v. Jayanti Lal Hem Chand Gandhi, wherein it has been held that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act for the restoration of a cause dismissed in default.

MISS Veena Bhutani, learned Counsel for the petitioner has however placed firm reliance on a later decision of this Commission in the case of Satender Yadav v. Somko Automobiles & Another, reported as II (1994) CPJ 170 in which aforesaid authority of the National Commission was considered and followed but further held that a complaint dismissed in default due to the non-appearance of the complainant could be restored for trial on merits by the District Forum, in a revision petition by the State Commission. Obviously while doing so, the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason and justification for the absence of the complainant and his promptitude in pursuing the cause later on and the efforts made for the restoration of the complaint are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the complaint was dismissed on 14th of June, 1994 and the application for restoration was also made on that very day on the ground that the Counsel of the complainant after arguing another case in Sessions Court, Ambala had rushed to appear before the learned District Forum at 11.50 a.m., therefore, the dismissal of the complaint in default even before the lunch hours was unusual. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and remand the case back to the learned District Forum, Ambala for deciding the complaint on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed without costs.