Order No. 2 date: 10-06-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of admissibility of the instant appeal.

Simple case of the Appellant is that an ex parte order was passed by the Ld. District Forum without due knowledge of the Appellant.  In view of some ongoing civil litigations, the working of the Appellant was in a doldrums and taking advantage of such turmoil situation, the Respondent No. 1 moved the Ld. District Forum with his grievance and obtained a favourable decree behind their back. Such lapse could not have happened if the affairs of the Appellant was in shape and not disturbed by the unexpected litigations and multiplicity of proceedings, for which officials of the Appellant was unaware of the consumer case moved by the Respondent No. 1 against them. 

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there was no intentional laches on their part behind total no-show of the Appellant before the Ld. District Forum which enabled the Respondent No. 1 to get a complete walkover. The Ld. District Forum did not pass the order in proper perspective and ought to have circulated and given publication of the pendency of said consumer case in widely circulated daily newspaper for proper and effective knowledge of the Appellant.  Further, the Ld. District Forum ought not to have relied upon the statement of the Respondent No. 1 who did not even try to communicate the order properly to the Appellant.  Respondent No. 1, as a Member of the Appellant association, was fully aware of the prevailing situation over there because of ongoing litigation before the Hon’ble High Court.  However, taking undue advantage of the situation, he obtained the decree in his favour by suppressing material fact before the Ld. District Forum.  As such, the impugned order be set aside.

Fact remains that the present appeal has been initiated u/s 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in respect of the order for issuance of WA against the Appellant.  Insofar as no appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the final order passed in C.C. No. 634/2013, the same has attained finality.

It is claimed by the Appellant that they had no proper knowledge about the initiation of concerned consumer case by the Respondent No. 1.  On perusal of order no. 3 dated 09-01-2014, however, we find that notice of concerned consumer case was duly served upon the Appellant.  Thus, we find no merit in such assertion of the Appellant.

Similarly, we do not find any merit in the assertion of the Appellant that paper publication of the concerned consumer case should have been made for ensuring effective knowledge of the Appellant about such case because, while proper service of notice has been done in respect of the concerned consumer case, it was up to the Appellant to devise its future course of action – appearing or skipping the proceedings before the Ld. District Forum was their own choice. They treaded the second option at their own peril. Pendency of litigation(s) before other Court is no justified ground to ignore the notice of another competent Court of Law (District Forum).

In fact, it transpires from the petition of execution filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the Ld. District Forum that copy of final order in respect of the consumer case was sent to the Appellant by the Respondent No. 1 through Speed Post, which they received on 17-01-2015 and notice of execution case was issued on 20-02-2015.  During this intervening period, neither the Appellant moved before the higher Forum challenging the final order passed in respect of the consumer order nor complied with the said order despite having sufficient time to choose either of these options left before them. 

There is absolutely no merit in the instant appeal. Therefore, it stands rejected being not maintainable, but without any order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.