UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Jagan Nath Thapar

THIS revision against the order of the Delhi State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "the State Commission") whereby first appeal No.2012/319 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non -prosecution.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission dismissed the appeal in early hours of the day. It is contended that the petitioner was being represented by a counsel before the State Commission. The counsel had other matters on the said day and he could not appear before the State Commission when the case was called as he was busy in the District Forum in a matter listed there. Learned counsel has thus summed up that the absence of the appellant on the relevant date of hearing was unintentional and if the impugned order is not set aside the petitioner shall suffer grave injustice because he has a very good case in appeal.

RESPONDENT on the contrary has contended that the appeal has been rightly dismissed by the State Commission for non -prosecution. It is argued that as per the admission of the petitioner the counsel for the appellant did not put in appearance when the case was called and he appeared after the case had been dismissed for non -prosecution. Thus, the respondent has urged us to dismiss the revision petition. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. From the submissions of the parties it is clear that on the relevant date of hearing the counsel for the appellant did visit the State Commission but unfortunately before his arrival the appeal was dismissed for non -prosecution. From this it is evident that the State Commission has hastily dismissed the appeal for non -prosecution without passing over the matter and waiting for the counsel for the appellant to come. It is common knowledge that the advocates deal with number of briefs and sometimes on a given date the counsel is supposed to appear in cases fixed before different forums. Therefore, he cannot be expected to appear before two forums if the cases are called simultaneously. For this reason, it is expected of a judicial fora that if a person or his counsel fails to put in appearance in the first call, they should wait for some time before passing adverse order. Thus, under the circumstances, we are unable to sustain the impugned order which admittedly was passed in early hours of the day given the fact that counsel for the appellant did appear before the Bench on the same day. Thus, in interest of justice, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/ - to be paid by the appellant to the respondent for the delay caused. The matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits.

PARTIES to appear before the State Commission on 30.3.2015. Since this matter relates to the complaint filed in 2011, we request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within three months from 30.3.2015.