CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

N Sampathkumar vs Amarnath R Sowlee

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 15 April 2015 · Citation: (2015) 04 NCDRC CK 0108

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K.JAIN , VINAY KUMAR , M.SHREESHA J.
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 393 words
1.

THIS First Appeal, by the Complainant, is directed against the main order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (for short "the State Commission") in OP No. 65 of 2000. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the Complainant, when the case was taken up for final disposal. We may note that after the dismissal of the complaint, the Appellant had moved an application before the State Commission for recall of the said order but the application was dismissed on the ground that the State Commission did not have the power of review of its order.

2.

DESPITE service of notice on the Respondent, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

3.

ACCORDINGLY , we have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant on application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal as well as on merits. IA No. 682 of 2015 (Application for condonation of delay) Having perused the application filed for condonation of delay and the additional affidavit, filed pursuant to order dated 31.10.2014, we are of the view that the Appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Even otherwise, there is no resistance to the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. First Appeal

4.

IT is not clear from the impugned order as to when the case was listed for appearance of the Complainant and for disposal but it is evident that the complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2000 and was listed for final hearing after about 11 years. We feel that having waited for such a long period for his complaint, that too involving medical negligence on the part of the respondent, the complainant would not consciously ignore its listing. We are of the view that the interests of justice would be sub -served if an opportunity of being heard is granted to the Appellant by the State Commission.

5.

ACCORDINGLY , we allow the Appeal; set aside order dated 14.02.2011; and restore the complaint to the board of the State Commission for disposal on merits.

6.

THE Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.