AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 398 wordsCOSTS imposed earlier stand paid.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for restoration of the revision petition, which was dismissed in default on 29.9.2014.
THE record shows that learned counsel for the petitioner takes dates on one pretext or the other but in the interest of justice, the application for restoration is allowed and the revision petition is restored to its original number, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/ - as further costs, which be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of "Pay and Accounts Officer -Ministry of Consumer Affairs'', payable at New Delhi through demand draft. To make the things easy, the demand draft be prepared and handed over to the Registrar of this Commission, who will transmit the same to the concerned department. Arguments on main petition heard.
THE impugned order runs as follows: "Appeal No. 562/2002
10/10/2012
Cause list has been repeatedly listed uploaded in site at internet. Despite having information, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner.
It appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal as such, in the absence of appellant, appeal is dismissed in default.
Sd/ - (S.A.A. Rizwi) Presiding member Sd/ - (Chander Bal Srivastav) Member ''''
THE procedure adopted by Sh. S.A.A. Rizvi, Presiding Member and Sh. Rampal Singh, Member is not correct. They did not proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No summons/notice were ever served upon the petitioner.
THEREAFTER , an application for restoration was moved, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2013 in view of Supreme Court authority Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr, 2011 4 CPJ 35 (SC). Thereafter the petition was filed before this Commission on 11.2.2013.
IN the interest of justice, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission, remand the case back to the State Commission with a direction to it to decide the matter afresh after serving service to the respondent as well in accordance with law. They should not adopt such like wrong procedure in deciding the cases.
THE petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.2.2015. The State Commission is directed to hear the petitioner after satisfying that the costs of Rs.5,000/ - stand paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
IN view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of.