Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a company and its director, challenged an order dated 12-10-2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, dismissing their appeal in default. The respondent had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola, alleging that he purchased a Marco Polo School Bus from the petitioners which had serious defects from the beginning, requiring frequent repairs. The respondent sought a new bus and damages. The petitioners denied the allegations. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,00,000 towards damages and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation expenses. The petitioners appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal in default. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The court considered whether the writ petition was maintainable. It held that since the appeal was dismissed in default and not on merits, the writ petition was maintainable. The court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to its original number, directing the State Commission to decide it on merits after hearing both parties. The court also directed the parties to appear before the State Commission on 25-03-2019.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Dismissal of Appeal in Default - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The petitioners challenged an order of the State Commission dismissing their appeal in default. The court held that since the appeal was dismissed in default and not on merits, the writ petition was maintainable and the impugned order was set aside, restoring the appeal to its original number. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing an appeal in default, and whether such order should be set aside.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12-10-2017, and restored the appeal to its original number. The State Commission was directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both parties. The parties were directed to appear before the State Commission on 25-03-2019.
Law Points
- Writ petition maintainable against dismissal of appeal in default
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 15
- restoration of appeal
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 290
Writ Petition No.2406 of 2018
Mr. T.D. Mandalekar and Mr. R.V. Malviya for petitioners, Mr. C.A. Joshi for respondent
Wasan Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kundanlal Wasan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing appeal in default.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the appeal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' appeal before the State Commission was dismissed in default.
Previous Decisions
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola allowed the respondent's complaint and directed petitioners to pay Rs. 2,00,000 damages and Rs. 10,000 litigation expenses.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against an order dismissing an appeal in default by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Whether the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that since the appeal was dismissed in default and not on merits, the writ petition is maintainable and the order should be set aside.
Respondent's counsel opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition is maintainable against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing an appeal in default, as such an order does not decide the matter on merits and can be interfered with under writ jurisdiction to prevent failure of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the petitioners, that since the appeal has been dismissed in default by the State Commission and not on merits, the Writ Petition filed by them is maintainable and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-10-2017 passed by the State Commission is set aside. The appeal is restored to its original number.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Akola, which allowed the complaint. The petitioners appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, which dismissed the appeal in default on 12-10-2017. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 15
