Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/955

ROHINI PRASAD PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

VISHNU PRASAD TIWARI

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

ROHINI PRASAD VS ICICI HOME FINANCE CO.LTD.

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 06.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.284/2021 by District Forum, Rewa)

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL     :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK    :      MEMBER 

                              

                                      O R D E R

20.12.2022

 

           Shri Vishnu Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

                       

As per Dr. Monika Malik:                       

            This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.284/2021 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

2.                Heard.

3.                Learned counsel for complainant/appellant submits that the complainant/appellant had instituted a consumer complaint.  The matter was called up for hearing on various dates but hearing could not take place because the post of Presiding Officer was lying vacant. By mistake, the office of the counsel for the complainant could not note the date fixed in the matter.  Since the date could not be noted, neither the counsel for the complainant, nor the complainant could appear before the District Commission and therefore the complaint was

 

-2-

dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.09.2022 He therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the complaint be ordered to be restored back. 

4.                We find that the District Commission in the impugned order has noted that the notice of the complaint could not be issued due to the oppsite parties/respondents since the complainant/appellant could not submit process fee and copy of the documents filed by him.  The complaint was thus dismissed for want of prosecution.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/appellant, we find that there was sufficient cause for absence of appellant before the District Commission when the case was called and we also find that the matter deserves to be decided on its merits.

6.                In the circumstances, by condoning the absence of appellant, the complaint before the District Commission is directed to be restored back to its original number by setting aside the impugned order.

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 10.01.2023. Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.

8.                The District Commission is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

9.                With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs.

                    (S. S. Bansal)                       (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                Presiding Member                          Member