National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Afsar Alam vs Sh Sanjay Kumar Misra Pd Nhai Piu Baghpat on 24 June, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1694 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 25/04/2024 in Appeal No. A/1440/2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. AFSAR ALAM VILLAGE MUSTAFABAD POST PANCHEDA KALAN MUZAFFARNAGAR MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SH SANJAY KUMAR MISRA PD NHAI PIU BAGHPAT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA FRANDS COLONY NEAR PWD GUEST HOUSE BADUT ROAD PIU-BAGHPAT 250609 U P BAGHPAT UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1695 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 25/04/2024 in Appeal No. A/1441/2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. AFSAR ALAM VILLAGE MUSTAFABAD
POST PANCHEDA KALAN MUZAFFARNAGAR MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SH MUKESH KUMAR JAIN & OTHERS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA R.O. UP-WEST LUCKNOW-226010 LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH 2. SH NARENDRA PARTAP SINGH DGM NHAI NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA R.O. UP-WEST LUCKNOW-226010 LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH 3. D.K.CHATURVEDI GM PD NHAI MEERUT A 1 VAISNO DHAM NEER GAYATRI HEIGHTS KANKARKHEDA MEERUT 250001 MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1696 OF 2024 (Against the Order dated 25/04/2024 in Appeal No. A/1442/2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. AFSAR ALAM VILLAGE MUSTAFABAD POST PANCHEDA KALAN MUZAFFARNAGAR MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CVO NHAI AND K K DHIMAN AND B K THAKUR AND UMA KANT MINA NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G5&6 SECTER 10 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110 075 NEW DELHI DELHI 2. K K DHIMAN GM VIGILANCE NHAII NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G 5 & 6 SECTOR-10 DWARKA 110075 NEW DELHI DELHI 3. B K THAKUR G M NHAI VIGILANCE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G 5 & 6 SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110075 NEW DELHI DELHI 4. UMA KANT MINA NHAI VIGILANCE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G 5 & 6 SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEW DELHI 110075 NEW DELHI DELHI ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : IN PERSON Dated : 24 June 2024 ORDER
1. These revision petitions have been filed in challenge to the Orders dated 25.04.2024 in Appeals No. 1440, 1441 and 1442 of 2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh.
2. Heard the petitioner in person and perused the record including the impugned Orders.
3. It appears that on 25.04.2024 which was the date fixed for virtual hearing before the State Commission the petitioner / complainant conveyed his inability to participate in the proceedings in the wake of the hospitalization of his wife and her operation that had taken place. But though the State Commission fixed another date but it imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the complainant / petitioner. The perusal of the impugned Orders shows that as the respondents / opposite parties had to take the trouble of coming to the State Commission on this date, the State Commission was of the view that prior information about the adjournment ought to have been given. That appears to be the reason for imposing the cost.
The petitioner who has appeared in person has submitted that actually his wife was on her family way who had suddenly developed some complications as a result of which she had to be rushed to the hospital where she was got admitted. Because of the emergency situation she had to be operated upon by the doctors and the operation was done on 22.04.2024. Attention was drawn to the annexures which are the birth certificate of the child and discharge summary of the wife of complainant / petitioner. The date of birth of the child has been shown as 22.04.2024 and as per the discharge summary the wife of the petitioner namely Shama Praveen was discharged from hospital on 25.04.2024. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that in the wake of the afore-said circumstances and the mental and physical pre-occupation of the petitioner relating to the situation of his hospitalized wife, on the receipt of the Zoom meeting link, he replied to the State Commission without losing much time and conveyed the message that his wife was in the hospital and the operation has been performed upon her and because of these reasons he would be unable to participate in the hearing. Submission is that this information was sent one day prior to the date fixed i.e. on 24.04.2024 itself almost immediately after receiving the Zoom link for virtual hearing. Submission is that the circumstances which prevented the petitioner from appearing were beyond his control and he did not deliberately omit to appear on the date fixed. Contention is that in these circumstances the imposition of cost is unreasonably harsh and shall deleteriously affect the poor petitioner / complainant badly.
4. Perused the record in the light of the submissions made. It may be observed that though often fake adjournments are sought and delaying tactics are adopted which impel the Commissions to impose suitable costs while granting adjournments, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which transpire from perusal of the documents relating to the hospitalization of wife of the complainant / petitioner and the delivery of the child, and seeing the fact that all these events were happening and coinciding so nearly with the hearing of the matter, the inability expressed and conveyed by the complainant does not appear to be either fake or frivolous.
In the conspicuous circumstances of the case it appears that the cost imposed by the State Commission upon the petitioner may be written off.
Thus the impugned Orders so far as it relates to the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- stands set aside.
5. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all the parties in the petition. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
..................................................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE PRESIDING MEMBER