MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. TARSEEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioner/opposite party challenges the orders dated 13.2.2001 and 5.2.2002 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh.

(2.) Complaint filed by the respondent/complainant which was contested was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to make payment of damages amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- and cost of proceedings by the District Forum, Hoshiarpur by the order dated 7.1.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 190 of 1999 which was dismissed in default of appearance by the order dated 13.2.2001 by State Commission.

(3.) Miscellaneous Application No. 1003 of 2001 filed for restoration of appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 5.2.2002 by State Commission. Relying on the decisions in General Manager, Telephone v. Jayanti Lal Hemchand Gandhi, III (1993) CPJ 273 (NC)=1993 (3) CPR 135 and Durgappa Rajaram Bailpattar v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Akurdi, III (1996) CPJ 77 (NC)=1996 (3) CPR 193, the submission advanced by Mr. Vinay Garg for petitioner was that State Commission could not have legally dismissed the appeal in default on 13.2.2001 without adverting to the merits of appeal and as there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for restoration of appeal dismissed in default; the order dated 5.2.2002 dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 1003 of 2001 would not debar the petitioner as regards grant of the relief prayed for in this revision. Both the said decisions support the submission advanced by Mr. Garg. Since there is no provision for restoration of appeal dismissed in default in the Act, the petitioner's application seeking recall of said order dated 13.2.2001 was an exercise in futility and the order dated 5.2.2002 dismissing that application would not come in the way of petitioner in seeking setting aside of the order dated 13.2.2001. Both the aforesaid orders dated 13.2.2001 and 5.2.2002, thus deserve to be set aside.