SURAJ NIKAM Vs. DEEPAK ASHTANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been made on behalf of the appellant/original applicant in the above matter for recalling our order dated 8.3.2001 wherein the appeal of the appellant came to be disposed of by this Commission in their absence on consideration of the merits thereof.

(2.) The result is that the appeal came to be dismissed. The reason for recalling the order in question is that the appellant was not aware of the date of hearing of the appeal. However, the same position does not appear to be correct. We have dealt with in the very first paragraph of the judgment about the conduct of the appellant, which is reproduced- "none is present on behalf of the appellant although notice intimating today's date of hearing has been issued to the appellant and thus being aware of today's date of hearing. It is further noticed that even in the past appellant was informed of the matter being on Board, but he did not appear. Furthermore, although the appeal has been filed in the year 1997, no steps have been taken to have the same processed further. "

(3.) The aforesaid observations are reflecting upon the conduct of the appellant. In this respect we may add that as dealt by the Supreme Court, the power to recall of the order of the Consumer Fora functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited. In that if there is any error appeared at the end of the Consumer Fora resulting in the passing of the ex-parte order, then only such power to recall can be exercised. In the instant case as pointed out earlier and as has been so mentioned in the first paragraph of the judgment in question, such was not the position. Refer judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Shah and Ors. V/s. The Bombay Hospital Trust, 1999 3 CPJ 1.