As per  Mr. A.K. Zade, Hon’ble Member

COMMON ORDER

1. Appeal No.A/19/50, has been filed by the appellant against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Gondia, dated 6.12.2018 in Consumer Case No.CC/18/27. Appeal No.A/19/51, has been filed by the appellant against the order of the District Consumer Forum,Gondia, dated 6.12.2018 in Consumer case No. CC/17/10. The appellant is the same person in both these appeals and the respondent is also same in both these appeals. The District Consumer Forum, passing the impugned orders in both these appeals is also same. Also facts and the grounds for preferring these appeals against the respective orders in respective complaints are similar. Hence both these appeal are decided by this common order.
2. Appellant who is the original complainant in both the complaints, have  preferred these appeals against the orders of “Dismiss for non prosecution” in the respective complaints, at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence by complainant in respective complaints. Appellant submitted in both appeals that on 6.12.2018 the matters were listed for filing evidence affidavits by complainant in both the complaint cases. As per appellant, his evidence affidavits were ready. However because of certain reasons, his advocate was unable to reach the forum in first half as he was held up in another case and therefore he was not able to attend the case, when the matters were called in first half.  Thereafter, when in second half, his advocate appeared before the forum, he came to know that the dismissal orders were already passed in the said complaint cases. Applications for setting aside the dismissal orders were preferred by the advocate before the District Forum, however the same were rejected for the reason that the forum had no powers to review its own orders.
3. Heard. Perused records.
4. The certified copy of the impugned order in appeal No.A/19/50 passed in Consumer complaint No.CC/18/27 dated 6.12.2018 reads as follows.

“ सदरहू प्रकरणांत पुकारा केला असता पुका-याचे वेळी तक्रारकत्याचे अधिवक्ता हजर.विरूध्द पक्ष व त्यांचे अधिवक्ता गैरहजर. सदर प्रकरणांत दिनांक २८/०६/२०१८ पासून 7 तारखा होऊनही तक्रारकत्याने त्याचा शपथपत्रावरील पुरावा दाखल केल्यामूळे विरुध्द पक्षाच्या अधिवक्त्यांनी सदर प्रकरण “ Dismiss for default ”  करण्याची मंचास विनंती केली. तक्रारकत्यामूळे या तक्रारीस विलंब होत असल्यामूळे तक्रारकत्याच्या तक्रारीत “ Dismiss for Non-Prosecution ” चा आदेश निशाणी क्रमांक 1 वर पारित करण्यात आला. प्रकरण नस्तीबंद. 

L/o.  तक्रारकत्याचे अधिवक्ता श्री राजनकर हजर. त्यांनी मंचाने पारित केलेला  “ Dissmiss for Non-Prosecution” चा आदेश मागे घेण्याबाबतचा अर्ज दाखल केला. अर्जावर आदेश पारित. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या IV(2011) CPJ 35 (SC) – Rajiv Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achut Karekar & Anr.  या प्रकरणात दिलेल्या न्यायनिर्णयाच्या परिच्‍छेद क्रमांक 36 मधील निवाडयानूसार जिल्हा मंचाला आपला आदेश Review करण्याचा अधिकार नसल्यामूळे त्यांचा सदरचा अर्ज मंचाने फेटाळला”.

5. The certified copy of the impugned order in appeal No.A/19/51 passed in Consumer complaint No.CC/17/10 dated 6.12.2018 reads as follows.

“ सदरहू प्रकरणांत पुकारा केला असता पुका-याचे वेळी तक्रारकत्याचे अधिवक्ता हजर.विरूध्द पक्ष व त्यांचे अधिवक्ता गैरहजर. सदर प्रकरणांत दिनांक २८/०६/२०१८ पासून 7 तारखा होऊनही तक्रारकत्याने त्याचा शपथपत्रावरील पुरावा दाखल केल्यामूळे विरुध्द पक्षाच्या अधिवक्त्यांनी सदर प्रकरण “ Dismiss for default ” करण्याची मंचास विनंती केली. तक्रारकत्यामूळे या तक्रारीस विलंब होत असल्यामूळे तक्रारकत्याच्या तक्रारीत “ Dismiss for Non-Prosecution” चा आदेश निशाणी क्रमांक 1 वर पारित करण्यात आला. प्रकरण नस्तीबंद. 

L/o. तक्रारकत्याचे अधिवक्ता श्री राजनकर हजर. त्यांनी मंचाने पारित केलेला  “ Dissmiss for Non-Prosecution” चा आदेश मागे घेण्याबाबतचा अर्ज दाखल केला. अर्जावर आदेश पारित. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या IV(2011) CPJ 35 (SC)– Rajiv Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achut Karekar & Anr.या प्रकरणात दिलेल्या न्यायनिर्णयाच्या परिच्छेद क्रमांक 36 मधील निवाडयानूसार जिल्हा मंचाला आपला आदेश Review करण्याचा अधिकार नसल्यामूळे त्यांचा सदरचा अर्ज मंचाने फेटाळला”.

6. The very texts of the first para of the certified copies of the above orders show that the advocate for complainant was present and the opposite parties and their advocate(s) were absent. The orders further read as “as the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, advocate for opposite parties requested to dismiss the complaint for default”. If such is a situation as per the texts of the orders, we are not able to understand as to how the respective complaints can be dismissed for default or dismissed for non prosecution by the learned District Forum, and how the advocate for opposite parties can make such a request. As per the above texts of the certified copies of the impugned orders, there should be no reason for the forum to dismiss the complaints for want of prosecution. The impugned orders are required to be set aside on this ground only,  although the hand written orders of the forum (in English), the photo copies of which are enclosed with the copy of complaints filed by appellant speak otherwise. Moreover, the same show the casual approach of the President and Members of the concerned forum in the matter of dictating/checking and verifying the typed/printed copies of the orders before signing them. Appellant had also given reasons for not being present and for said non-submission by his advocate in the first half of the said date, who appeared before forum later-on, on the same day.  In view of the submissions of the appellant, we find it necessary to give the complainant an opportunity for filing his evidence affidavit in both complaint cases in support of his pleas in the respective complaints. We therefore find it necessary to allow both the appeals and to set aside the impugned orders in the respective complaints mentioned above.
7. Hence, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. The appeals Nos. A/19/50 and A/19/51 are allowed.
2. The orders dated 6.12.2018 in Consumer case No.CC/18/27 and Consumer case No. CC/17/10 both passed by District Consumer Forum, Gondia are hereby set aside.
3. The complainant is allowed to file the evidence affidavit in both the complaints before District Consumer Forum, Gondia within a period of four weeks from receipt of this order.  The District Consumer Forum Gondia, is directed to decide the consumer complaints on merits after receiving the evidence affidavit from the complainant in compliance of the above order in both the complaint cases and after giving opportunities to both parties for filing their written notes of arguments and hearing.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copy of the order be provided to all the parties free of cost.