RAM RAKSH PAL GUPTA Vs. RANJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the opposite parties under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. It arises out of an interim order passed by the District Forum.

(2.) During the proceedings before the District Forum, parties filed their affidavits. Petitioners, it appears, wanted to file further affidavit and for that they requested for an adjournment for a week. Though this was opposed by the respondent-complainant, District Forum allowed the prayer of the petitioners on payment of Rs. 25/- as costs and the matter was adjourned to 12.7.1999. Matter could not be taken up on this day as lawyers were on strike and complaint was adjourned to 17.8.1999. Since cost was not paid even on 17.8.1999, further affidavit of the petitioners was not taken on record and the District Forum adjourned the complaint to 4.9.1999. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) Aggrieved petitioners filed revision before the State Commission which was dismissed. State Commission observed that in regard to payment of costs, petitioner was not serious and even on 17.8.1999, the date after the 12.7.1999, when there was strike of lawyers, cost was not paid. Contention of the petitioners that the complainant refused to accept the cost was not believed by the State Commission. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed.