DIRECTOR FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Vs. SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this miscellaneous petition by opposite party No. 1 in the complaint case is for recalling the Order dated 18.4.96 passed by this Commission allowing the complaint filed by Director, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, against opposite party No. 1 relating to the supply of defective machinery to the complainant. This Commission directed the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 8,33,806/ - as representing the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 by way of cost of the machinery which had been found to be defective besides directing payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 2nd April, 1992 the date on which the complainant had paid the amount besides costs of the petition fixed at Rs.5,000/ -. The defective equipment was directed to be returned by the complainant to the 1st opposite party if and when the first opposite party made arrangement to take over the same from the complainant after remitting of the amounts directed to be paid to the complainant under the said Order.

(2.) THE grounds alleged for recalling the Order dated 18.4.96 are that the complaint case was posted before this Commission on 10.4.96 and the opposite party No. 1 sought adjournment on 3.4.96 since the partner who was in -charge of the firm's business was suffering from typhoid and medically advised one month's rest, that the non -appearance of the first opposite party is not intentional or deliberate and the same was on genuine and bona fide reason, and that the National Commission wrongly decided to proceed ex -parte against the opposite party No. 1 and passed an order in favour the complainant. The copy of the Order dated 18.4.96 is stated to have been received on 23.5.96 and the application for recalling the order was filed on 9th July, 1996.

(3.) IN the application which is now filed by the first opposite party for recalling the order dated 18th April, 1996, the only ground that is stated is that: "that the case was posted on 10.4.96 and the opposite party No. 1 sought adjournment on 3.4.96 since the partner who is in -charge of the firm's business was suffering from typhoid and medically advised one month's rest". It is not disclosed in the application or in the affidavit in support thereof as to how the adjournment was sought on 3.4.96. There is neither any application of the first opposite party dated 3rd of April, 1996 on the record of this Commission nor even any telegraphic intimation dated 3rd April, 1996. As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the 1st opposite party on 10.4.96, the only course open to this Commission was to proceed ex -parte. We did not decide the complaint case on 10.4.94 but adjourned it to 18.4.96. The first opposite party has been grossly negligent in not finding out as to what transpired on 10.4.96 either themselves, or through their Counsel on record. They took no steps to put in appearance on 10.4.96. This Commission had earlier granted on 24.1.96 last opportunity to the 1st opposite party. The Counsel for the first opposite party admitted that the first opposite party was duly served of the notice dated 8th of March, 1996, fixed the hearing of the case on 10th of April, 1996. As the first opposite party failed to appear despite service of the notice and the last opportunity having been given in the order dated 24.1.96, there is absolutely no ground for recalling the order dated 18.4.96. Even otherwise, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has not given any power to this Commission for review of its orders. The application is dismissed without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.