M P Motors vs Naveen Kumar Jain

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 06 -11 -2012 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 05 -01 -2005 was dismissed in default.

THE complainant/respondent No.1 filed a consumer complaint on 17 -09 -2004 seeking compensation from the petitioner, from whom the chassis of a vehicle was purchased by him. The purchase was got financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance which was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the complaint.

VIDE its order dated 05 -01 -2005 the District Forum allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, vide order dated 01 -12 -2005. Being aggrieved from dismissal of the appeal the petitioner approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. That petition having been dismissed he approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal. Vide order dated 16 -11 -2009 the Hon''ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the State Commission for hearing the same on merits. The State Commission thereafter dismissed the appeal for non -prosecution on 06 -11 -2012. On coming to know of the said dismissal the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 01 -08 -2014. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. The case of the petitioner is that since his business in Jabalpur had closed down in the year 2007, the same having been taken over by Star Automobiles he had stopped going to Jabalpur. Mr. Dinesh Varma who was the General Manager of the petitioner and was pursuing this case also left the job. This is also the case of the petitioner that the advocate who was representing him before the Hon''ble Supreme Court became a Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice was issued to him by the State Commission at Mumbai address and on the matter being remitted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the notice sent at Madhya Pradesh address could not be served at him since his business in Madhya Pradesh has already closed down and the complainant had stopped going to Jabalpur. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating therein that he came to know of the order passed by the Supreme Court as well as of the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission only during the course of execution proceeding filed by the complainant.

CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the absence of the petitioner before the State Commission on 06 -11 -2012 was not willful. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits subject to paying a sum of Rs.25,000/ - as cost to the complainant.

THE parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18 -05 -2015. The cost shall be paid to the complainant on the aforesaid date. If the cost is not paid on that date this revision petition shall stand dismissed without any further order. On payment of cost the appeal shall be heard and decided on merit. We also request the State Commission to decide the appeal within three months of the parties appearing before it.