VINAY MOTOR COMPANY vs GARIB SINGH NARANG

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order dated 28.10.1992 passed by the State Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in Appeal No. 291/92 which had been preferred by the present Petitioner who had been arrayed as Opposite Party in the complaint filed by the present Respondent. The District Forum has allowed the complaint.

THE appeal was fixed for hearing by the State Commission on 6th October, 1992. However, that date was declared a holiday in connection with Dussehra. The appeal was taken up by the Commission on 7th October, 1992 on which date nobody appeared on behalf of the then appellant. After couple of adjournments, the appeal was dismissed in default on 28th October, 1992. The impugned order reads as follows : "This appeal was first listed on the 7th of October, 1992 but no appearance was put in on behalf of the appellant and taking a somewhat charitable view, the matter was adjourned to 21st of October, 1992. Even on 21st of October, nobody appeared for the appellant and the appeal was liable to be dismissed in default, however, taking a somewhat lenient view, one more opportunity was afforded to the appellant to prosecute his case. Even today also, the appellant has not chosen to appear in person or through Counsel. In this situation, we find no option but to dismiss the present appeal in default under Rule 8 sub-rule (6) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988.: "

A report was called for from the State Commission. In the report it is mentioned that the State Government had declared 6th October, 1992 as a public holiday due to Dussehra in lieu of 5th October, 1992, already notified and as usual a notice was displayed well in advance on the notice board to the effect that all the cases fixed for 6th October, 1992 stood adjourned to 7th October, 1992 and otherwise also it was the well settled practice in the courts and invariably adopted by that Commission that if any working day was declared public holiday due to certain reasons the work fixed for that date is taken up on the next working day. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the District Forum is illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. However, in this Revision Petition we are concerned with the order of the State Commission. The Petitioner had tried to agitate the order of the District Forum before the State Commission but as noticed above he did not prosecute his appeal properly and consequently the appeal was dismissed.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case principle of natural justice has been violated by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal in default inasmuch as no notice for any of the dates to which the appeal stood adjourned after 6th April, 1992 was issued to the Petitioner. We are of the opinion that this argument has no force. As noticed above the State Commission had notified well in advance that the cases fixed for 6th October, 1992 stood adjourned to 7th October, 1992. Otherwise also as noticed by the State Commission it is well settled practice that if any day is declared holiday the cases are taken up on the next date. The State Commission suo motu adjourned the case on a couple of occasions after 7th October, 1992 because of the absence of the petitioner but the Petitioner did not take any trouble to find out what had happened to his appeal which was fixed for hearing on 6th October, 1992. A duty is cast upon a party to find out about the progress of his case particularly when it is fixed for a certain date. In such circumstances a party cannot be permitted to sit at home and await receipt of fresh notice of hearing of his case.

FOR the foregoing reasons we do not find any force in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case we do not make any order as to costs.