R P SINGH Vs. JANTA STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the petitioner who appeared in person and the Authorized Representative who appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of this case the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh was not justified in disposing of the appeal without affording to the complainant an opportunity to have an effective hearing. The appellant (complainant) had filed a representation before the State Commission accompanied by a Medical Certificate praying that the appeal may be adjourned to any other day on the ground of the complainant's illness. The State Commission declined to grant the adjournment mainly on the ground that the Medical certificate did not clearly and legibly indicate the nature of the illness from which the complainant was suffering. Refusing to rely upon the Medical Certificate State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of default of appearance of the appellant. A restoration application filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Hence the complainant has come up before this Commission with this revision petition. After having examined the rather in all its aspects we are of opinion that the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal for default. We are unable to agree with the observation of the State Commission on the date on which the appeal was posted for hearing. The intention of Parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to enable an aggrieved consumer to secure Redressal from the statutory Forum at minimum cost with maximum expedition. A complainant may not be in a position to depute a representative to appear on his behalf before the Redressal Forum in the eventuality of his being suddenly taken ill. Appointing a legal representative in many such complaints would be costly and quite often dispropor Honate to the amount that can be awarded as relief. We feel that it will not be in conformity with the real spirit of the Act to take such a highly technical view and dismiss a complaint for default in spite of the complainant having produced a Medical Certificate in support of his averment of illness.

(2.) IN case the Medical Certificate did not clearly and legibly mention the nature of the illness the proper course to be adopted was to call for production of a better certificate from the Doctor concerned, which would have been conducive to effective justice being rendered in the matter.