Allowed

Umesh S/O Bansilal Patni and Another v. Amit S/O Bhaurao Gharde

Bombay HC9 Apr 2013WP/995/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur allowed a writ petition and quashed an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which dismissed an appeal for want of prosecution due to non-payment of costs. The Court held that a client should not suffer for the mistake of their counsel and directed the Commission to decide the appeal on merits upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal is quashed; the Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits upon payment of the specified costs (Rs. 2,500) within three week

Umesh S/O Bansilal Patni and Another Vs Amit S/O Bhaurao… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

0904wp995.13.odt

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.995/2013

¶5

Umesh s/o Bansilal Patni and another

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

Amit s/o Bhaurao Gharde

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

¶12

Shri V.U. Waghmare, Counsel for petitioners

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.04.2013

¶14

Though notice of final disposal was issued and the notice is duly served on the respondent, none appears for the respondent.

¶15

By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur on 27.11.2012, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners for want of prosecution as the petitioners and their Counsel were absent on 27.11.2012.

¶16

The respondent had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the said complaint was allowed by the Forum on 23.11.2009, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to the respondent. The petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.62,050/- with interest in the office of

¶17

0904wp995.13.odt

¶18

¶19

the Consumer Forum. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Forum before the State Commission. The Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shrimali had entrusted the matter to Ms K.R. Masurkar and Advocate Mohikar for appearing before the State Commission on the various dates of hearing. The matter was adjourned on 10.8.2012 on a request made by Ms Masurkar Advocate, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Inadvertently, the Advocate did not inform her senior Shri Shrimali about the imposition of the costs and also did not inform the fact to the petitioners. On the adjourned date of hearing on 27.11.2012, an application was filed by Advocate Mohikar for adjournment. However, the State Commission dismissed the adjournment application on the ground that on the previous date of hearing the adjournment was granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/and the costs had not been paid. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the State Commission on 27.11.2012, dismissing the appeal in default.

¶20

On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioners to prosecute the appeal filed by them before the State Commission. It is a well settled position of law that a client should not suffer for the mistake of his Counsel. It appears that though an adjournment was granted on the previous date of hearing at the request of Ms Masurkar Advocate, inadvertently, the fact that the adjournment application was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-, was not informed by Ms Masurkar Advocate either to her senior or to the petitioners. In this background, the costs of

¶21

0904wp995.13.odt

¶22

¶23

Rs.500/- were not paid and an application for adjournment was made on the next date of hearing. The State Commission rejected the application for adjournment dated 27.11.2012 solely on the ground that the costs of Rs.500/- as directed to be paid by the previous order were not paid. In the facts and circumstances of the case and because a client should not suffer for the mistake of his Counsel, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the order passed by the State Commission and direct the Commission to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on merits.

¶24

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as directed by the State Commission by the impugned order dated 10.8.2012 and additional costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the respondent within a period of three weeks. The costs should be deposited before the State Commission for the sake of convenience within a period of three weeks.

¶25

In case the costs are paid, the State Commission should proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/-, deposited by the petitioners in this Court.

¶26

In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to

¶27

costs.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

ssw

Umesh S/O Bansilal Patni and Another v. Amit S/O Bhaurao Gharde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh S/O Bansilal Patni and Another v. Amit S/O Bhaurao Gharde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Public Information Officer and Secty. Rachna , SBI Karmachari Sahakari Gruh Nirman Society Vs Prabhakar S/O Narayanrao Mohadarkar and Ors.

Padmabai Suryabhan Thoke Vs Indubai Devidas Sable and Anr.

Ramrao Gopalrao Zanak Education Society through President Chiwara and Another Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University through Registrar

Sau. Mital Rajesh Phirke Vs Rajesh Pundlikrao Phirke

Baban Aatmaram Hole Vs the Government of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Others

Baban Aatmaram Hole Vs the Government of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Others