Allowed

Devender Kumar Gogia, v. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Telangana HC23 Oct 2013WP/15643/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing consumer appeals for default. Recognizing no statutory provision for restoration, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and restored the appeals, directing the State Commission to hear them on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.04.2013 set aside; F.A.Nos.29, 31, and 51 of 2012 restored to file for hearing on merits.

Devender Kumar Gogia, Vs The A.P. State Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

W.P.No.15643 of 2013

¶3

ORDER (Per RG, J)

¶4

The petitioners herein are the complainants in C.C.Nos.510, 520 and 522 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Form II, Visakhapatnam. The said complaints were dismissed by separate orders dated 11.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred F.A.Nos.29, 31 and 51 of 2012, respectively, before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the State Commission’). The said appeals were dismissed for default by common order dated 02.04.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶5

It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioners’ counsel was held up in another Court on 02.04.2013 and therefore, he could not be present when the matter was called. It is also pleaded that on 02.04.2013 itself the counsel for the petitioners appeared before the State Commission and made a request to take up the matter on merits, but the State Commission refused on the ground that there is no provision for restoring the cases dismissed for default.

¶6

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is no provision for restoration of the cases dismissed for default under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) the

¶7

only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on the other hand submitted that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act, and therefore they cannot straightaway invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶9

Section 21 of the Act provides for preferring a revision to the National Commission and in case it appears that the State Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, appropriate order can be passed by the National Commission.

¶10

Having regard to the admitted fact that there is no provision at all for restoration of the cases which are dismissed for default, and moreover apparently no question of error of jurisdiction is involved, we consider it appropriate to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, we are also satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for the absence of the petitioners on 02.04.2013 when the appeals were called for hearing before the State Commission.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 02.04.2013 is hereby set aside and F.A.Nos.29, 31 and 51 of 2012 are restored to file with a direction to the State Commission to hear and dispose of all the appeals on merits following due process of law.

¶13

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶15

G. ROHINI, J _____________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J 23^rd October, 2013 sj

Devender Kumar Gogia, v. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Kumar Gogia, v. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallepally Ramaraju Vs M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd.

Amarvadi Shyam Sundar Vs The Union of India

M/S.Choudhary Brothers Hyderabad Vs State of Ap and Others

Vxxxx Vs Xxxxx