KIRAN BHATTAD & ANR vs SHRINIVAS AGROTECH INDIA LTD. & ANR

This revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned orders dated 05.01.2012 & 17.02.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. A/1821/2003, "Kiran Bhattad & Ors. vs. Shrinivas Agrotech India Ltd. & Ors.", vide which, the said appeal filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint no. CPA/520/2003, filed by the present petitioner, was dismissed in default.

The facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants filed consumer complaint No. CPA-520/2003 before the District Forum, Nagpur against the Opposite parties (OPs)/respondents, saying that they invested a sum of 58,000/- and 50,000/- respectively in the scheme floated by the OPs known as "Shrinivas Heritage Park", as per which, certain land alongwith the plantation of trees made thereon, was to be transferred to the complainants. It was alleged that the OPs executed a sale-deed in favour of the complainants, after receiving the total cost of the plot, but it was observed that the land did not belong to the OPs and they had no authority to execute the said sale-deed. Moreover, the promised plantation on the said land had also not been made. Through the consumer complaint, the complainants sought directions to get a sum of 4,90,000/- from the OPs alongwith interest @18% p.a. and 50,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide their order dated 06.11.2003 and directed that the OPs shall allot plots to the complainants in the same area and execute the sale-deed for the same. In the alternative, the OP shall refund the amount of 40,000/- to each complainant alongwith 12% interest. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainants challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. However, vide order dated 05.01.2012, the said appeal was dismissed in default on the ground that the petitioners/appellants/complainants as well as their counsel had failed to appear before the State Commission. A Miscellaneous Application was filed by the petitioners, seeking review of the order of the State Commission, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2012 on the ground that the State Commission had no powers to set aside or recall its own order. It is against these orders of the State Commission that the present petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued during hearing that after the District Forum had passed their order in favour of the petitioners/complainants, the State Commission should have heard the appeal on merits and decided their plea of seeking enhancement of compensation. It has been stated in the grounds of revision petition that Sh. J.P. Kothari, Advocate for the petitioners/appellants underwent an operation at a hospital on 26.12.2011 for hydrocele and was advised complete bed-rest for three weeks with effect from 26.12.2011. It has also been stated that the post of Judicial Member of the State Commission had been vacant since a long time and the matter was being adjourned from time to time.

Considering the plea taken by the petitioners in the grounds of revision petition and the arguments led during hearing, it becomes apparent that the State Commission dismissed the appeal in default for the non-presence of the counsel for the petitioners. It has also come on record that the counsel for the petitioner had undergone some operation, and had been advised bed-rest. The OPs have not put in appearance during hearing on this revision petition despite publication of notice in the newspapers. It shall, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the petitioners/complainants should not be allowed to suffer on account of the fact that their counsel could not put in appearance before the State Commission due to some physical disability. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission are set aside and the appeal before the State Commission is restored to its original number. The State Commission is directed to give notice to the parties afresh and decide the appeal on merits. Since the matter has already become very old, it shall be appreciated if the State Commission decides the case preferably within a period of four months. The petitioners have been directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 29.05.2017.