National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Softvision Biotechnology & Science ... vs Ruchika Guresh & Anr. on 17 February, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3609 OF 2013 (From the order dated 27.08.2013 in First Appeal No. A-264/08 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal) 1. Softvision Biotechnology & Science College Scheme No. 54, F Sector New Look Building Indore (Madhya Pradesh ) 2. Neeraj Desai, Director Scheme No. 54, F Sector New Look Building Indore (Madhya Pradesh ) Through their authorized representative Mr. Rajendra Singh Saluja Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus 1. Ruchika Guresh D/o Shri Kailash Guresh 18/2, Sanvid Nagar, Kanadia Road, Indore (Madhya Pradesh) 2. Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed University, Allahabad 211 007 (U.P.) Respondents/Complainants BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate For the Respondents : NEMO PRONOUNCED ON 17th February, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. A-264 of 2008 Softvision Biotechnology & Anr. Vs. Ruchika & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed in default.
2. None appeared for the respondent even after service. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte.
3. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal in default as none appeared for the appellants against which, this revision petition has been filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned State Commission ought not to have dismissed appeal in default, but should have decided the appeal on merits and in such circumstances, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Perusal of record reveals that none appeared for the petitioners before the State Commission on 29.7.2011, 2.9.2011, 9.4.2012, 7.1.2013 and 27.8.2013. In such circumstances, appeals were dismissed for default vide impugned orders.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that State Commission ought to have disposed of appeal on merits instead of dismissing appeal for default. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on 2006 (2) CCC 28 Deepak Jaiswal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., 1993 (1) CTJ 843 General Manager, Telecom, Rajkot Vs. Jayanti Lal Hemchand Gandhi and 1996 (4) CTJ 863 Durgappa Rajaram Bailpattar Vs. General Manager, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune in which it was held that instead of dismissing appeal in default, State Commission ought to have decided appeal on merits.
8. As appeal has been dismissed for default, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal for disposal on merits.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and impugned order dated 27.8.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. A-264/08 Softvision Biotechnology & Anr. Vs. Ruchika & Anr. is set aside and appeal is restored to its original number. State Commission is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
10. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.3.2014.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k