TEJ BAHADUR SINGH vs Virju Yadav

PETITIONER /O.P. No.1 being aggrieved by order dated 4.12.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (for short, ''State Commission '')has filed the present revision petition.

RESPONDENT No.1/Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner as well as Respondent No.2/O.P. No.2 on the ground that petitioner had supplied bad quality of engine oil due to which engine of his vehicle was seized and the engine oil had been produced by respondent no.2. District Forum issued notice of the complaint to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 but they did not appear before it and as such both were proceeded exparte.

DISTRICT Forum, vide its order dated 15.10.2011 partly allowed the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum ''s order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission. On 4.12.2012, when the matter was listed before the State Commission, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and as such appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in default.

BEING aggrieved by the order of State Commission, petitioner has filed this petition.

IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that counsel for petitioner could not appear before the State Commission as he had gone to appear before the District Forum to attend the case and by the time when counsel reached the State Commission, appeal was dismissed in default on first call. The appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the first call. Non appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the State Commission is not intentional but is bonafide. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in LucknowDevelopment Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor (2013) Supreme Court Cases, 754.

IN the grounds of revision, petitioner has nowhere stated as to why he was not present in person before the State Commission on the date of hearing. Moreover, petitioner has not mentioned the name of the counsel who had to appear before the State Commission on the date fixed. The story put forward by the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. Moreover, a valuable right has accrued in the favour of the complainant.

PETITIONER after having been proceeded exparte before the District Forum, did not choose to pursue the appeal before the State Commission in a diligent manner. That is why his appeal was dismissed in default. Thus, careless and negligence on the part of the petitioner is writ large in this case since he has been contesting this litigation in a very careless and casual manner. Therefore, the decision of LucknowDevelopment Authority (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

UNDER section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, ''Act ''),this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

WE do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Under these circumstances, present revision petition has no legal force and as such the same stand dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs.5,000/ by way of demand draft, in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission, within four weeks from today.

IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

PENDING application, if any stands disposed of. List on 22nd November, 2013 for compliance.