Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anita Chandrakant Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 5.9.2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed her First Appeal No. 359 of 2014 in default for non-appearance on three consecutive dates (16.7.2014, 12.8.2014, and 5.9.2014). The petitioner contended that the appeal was dismissed even before notices were issued to the respondents. The petitioner relied on two earlier orders of single judges of the same High Court in Hemlata v. United India Insurance Co. (Writ Petition No.8401/2013) and Kapurchand Kotecha Urban Coop. Credit Society Ltd v. Mangilal Jain (Writ Petition No.531/2014), which held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not prohibit restoration of appeals dismissed in default and that the Consumer Fora have inherent powers to restore such appeals. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the file of the State Commission. The court directed the State Commission to decide the appeal on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The court also clarified that the restoration was not barred by any limitation period as the application for restoration was filed within a reasonable time.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Restoration of Appeal - Inherent Powers - Section 15, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance - The State Commission dismissed the appeal without issuing notice to respondents - The High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act does not expressly bar restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, and the Fora have inherent powers to restore such appeals to secure the ends of justice - The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the State Commission (Paras 4-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the power to restore an appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution, and whether the High Court can direct restoration in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5.9.2014, and restored First Appeal No. 359 of 2014 to the file of the State Commission. The State Commission was directed to decide the appeal on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 15
- Section 24A
- Section 24B
- restoration of appeal dismissed in default
- inherent powers of Consumer Fora
- condonation of delay
- no limitation period for restoration application
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 11
Writ Petition No. 7718 of 2015
Ku. Bhale Kavita S. for Petitioner, Shri Rane Girish S. for Respondents
The Circle Officer, LIC of India, Circle Office 'Jeevan Prakash', Adalat Road, Aurangabad and The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch 945, Ambajogai Road, Latur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the petitioner's first appeal in default for non-appearance.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought restoration of the first appeal dismissed in default and setting aside of the impugned order dated 5.9.2014.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's first appeal before the State Commission was dismissed in default on 5.9.2014 for non-appearance on three consecutive dates, even before notices were issued to the respondents.
Previous Decisions
The State Commission dismissed First Appeal No. 359 of 2014 in default on 5.9.2014.
Issues
Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the power to restore an appeal dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
Whether the High Court can direct restoration of such appeal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the appeal was dismissed without issuing notice to the respondents and relied on earlier orders of this Court holding that the Consumer Protection Act does not bar restoration of appeals dismissed in default.
Respondents did not oppose the restoration.
Ratio Decidendi
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not expressly bar restoration of appeals dismissed for non-prosecution. The Consumer Fora have inherent powers to restore such appeals to secure the ends of justice. The dismissal of an appeal in default before issuance of notice to the opposite party is a procedural irregularity that warrants restoration.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2014, passed by the State Commission by which the First Appeal No. 359 of 2014 has been dismissed in default.
It is specifically stated by the petitioner that even before issuing notices to the respondents in the First Appeal, the same has been dismissed in default as none was present for the appellant on 16.7.2014, 12.8.2014 and 5.9.2014.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum which was decided. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 359 of 2014 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in default on 5.9.2014 for non-appearance. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the dismissal order.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 15, Section 24A, Section 24B
