Softvision Biotechnology And Science College vs Manoj Tejawat

THESE revision petitions arise out of the similar separate order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal Nos. A -261, A -262, A -266, A -266, A -268, A -269, A -272 of 2008, A -2771of 2007, A -263, A -265, A -267, A -270 and A -271 of 2008 - Softvision Biotechnology and Anr. Vs. Manoj Tejawat and Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed in default.

LEARNED State Commission dismissed appeals in default as none appeared for the appellants against which, these revision petitioners have been filed. Respondents have filed reply to the revision petitions. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned State Commission ought not to have dismissed appeals in default, but should have decided the appeals on merits and in such circumstances, revision petitions be allowed and impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that appellants were not appearing before the State Commission since long period; hence, State Commission rightly dismissed appeals; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that none appeared for the petitioners before the State Commission on 29.7.2011, 2.9.2011, 9.4.2012, 7.1.2013 and 27.8.2013. In such circumstances, appeals were dismissed for default vide impugned orders. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that State Commission ought to have disposed of appeals on merits instead of dismissing appeals for default. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on 2006 (2) CCC 28 - Deepak Jaiswal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., 1993 (1) CTJ 843 - General Manager, Telecom, Rajkot Vs. Jayanti Lal Hemchand Gandhi and 1996 (4) CTJ 863 - Durgappa Rajaram Bailpattar Vs. General Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune in which it was held that instead of dismissing appeals in default, State Commission ought to have decided appeals on merits. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted in reply that appeals have also been dismissed on merits, but we do not find in the orders that appeals have been dismissed on merits.

AS appeals have been dismissed in default, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the appeals for disposal on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and impugned orders dated 27.8.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal Nos. A -261, A -262, A -266, A -266, A -268, A -269, A -272 of 2008, A -2771of 2007, A -263, A -265, A -267, A -270 & A -271 of 2008 - Softvision Biotechnology & Anr. Vs. Manoj Tejawat & Ors. are set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/ - to the respondent No. 1 in each case and appeals are restored to its original number. State Commission is directed to dispose of the appeals on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.3.2014.