FIITJEE LTD vs SNEH LATA
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 04th July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2842/2024 & CM APPL. 36684-36686/2024
FIITJEE LTD …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Goyal, Advocate (through V.C.)
versus
SNEH LATA …..Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL.36685-36686/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions
CM(M) 2842/2024 & CM APPL. 36684/2024 (stay)
1. Respondent, herein, had filed a complaint before the concerned District Forum of New Delhi and such complaint was partly allowed.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party, i.e., M/s. FIITJEE Ltd. (petitioner herein) preferred an appeal before Honble State Commission, New Delhi which was also dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short NCDRC). When such petition was taken up by NCDRC on 04.03.2024, it was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of one previous order dated 27.12.2023. According to petitioner, such order was duly complied with by the petitioner but the Registry of NCDRC, somehow, failed to point out the aforesaid aspect which resulted in erroneous dismissal of the petition.
3. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application seeking recall of such order. Such application was listed before NCDRC on 05.04.2024, and acknowledging the aforesaid fact, the Honble NCDRC restored the petition and directed the parties to file written synopsis and the matter was accordingly adjourned.
4. Eventually, the matter was posted before the NCDRC on 29.04.2024. However, that day, petitioner was represented by a proxy counsel who expressed her inability to argue the case on merits.
5. Sh. Mukesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the proxy counsel had appeared before the Honble Bench to seek pass over as he himself was busy before another Bench and since his associate was not conversant with the facts of the case, she was in no position to assist the Honble NCDRC.
6. It was in the aforesaid background that the revision petition listed before the NCDRC was dismissed for non-prosecution.
7. Such order is under challenge.
8. During course of the consideration, Sh. Mukesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that one opportunity may kindly be given. He undertakes that he would be extra-vigilant and would not seek any adjournment of any kind whatsoever.
9. It is noticed that the respondent has not been appearing before NCDRC. She was directed to be served by way of substituted service, i.e., publication. On the date when the impugned order was passed, there was no representation from her side. Today also, there is no representation from the side of the respondent despite service of advance notice.
10. Though, the petitioner is himself responsible for his miseries, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is no adjudication on merits as such. The proxy counsel also could not render any assistance and, ideally speaking, the petitioner should have made appropriate alternate arrangements well in advance so that the precious time of NCDRC was not wasted.
11. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion whatsoever with respect to merits of the revision petition, the impugned order is set aside. One last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to appear with due diligence before the Honble NCDRC. Needless to say, in view of above, the revision petition stands restored to its original number.
12. Petitioner would appear before Honble NCDRC on 07th August, 2024.
13. Petition stands disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 04, 2024/st
CM(M) 2842/2024 1