w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Kedar Kumar Sahu v/s Moonika Automobiles

    Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2015 in First Appeal No. 123 of 2013

    Decided On, 07 May 2015

    At, Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ranchi



Judgment Text

1. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed for restoration of FA 123 of 2013, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 13.02.2014.

2. Mr. Kamdev Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 29.01.2014, the counsel for the appellant learnt that the appeal stood dismissed on 28.01.2014. Thereafter he tried to take instruction from the appellant. He was instructed that no appeal could be filed before National Commission due to paucity of money. Therefore this restoration application has been filed. It was submitted that there are good chances of success of the appeal.

3. It appears from the records of FA 123 of 2013 that it was filed against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by learned District Consumer Forum in Consumer Case No. 210 of 2011. From the said order dated 05.07.2013 it appears that the parties amicably compromised and the complainant/appellant took his vehicle from the O.P/Respondent on 05.03.2013 after getting it fully repaired and the complainant had no grievances. Thereafter the complainant filed a petition for huge amount of compensation. The Forum was of the view that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was sufficient compensation which the O.P. was directed to pay.

4. Against the said order, the said FA 123 of 2013 was filed. On 07.11.2013 notice was issued on the point of limitation and admission to Respondents. On 16.12.2013, neither the appellant was present nor the requisites were filed. However the case was adjourned. On the next date i.e. 28.01.2014 again neither the appellant appeared nor the requisites were filed. However, one last chance was given. On the next date i.e. 13.02.2014 the following order was passed.

'13-02-2015 - On 07.11.2013 order was passed for issuance of notice on the point of limitation and admission. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant on 16.12.2013. Again on 28.01.2014, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, opportunity was given to appellant for filing requisites in terms of earlier orders. Today also nobody appears for the

appellant. In such circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution'.

5. In the present Miscellaneous Application it is stated that the appellant came to know about the said order of dismissal of appeal on 29.01.2014. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why steps were not taken in the said appeal inspite of several opportunities. Further there is no explanation at all as to why this application for restoration has been filed after about 14 months. From the alleged date of knowledge of dismissal of the appeal. Further, as already noticed there was no merit in appeal also.

In the facts and circumstances noticed above, in our opinion no grounds for restoration of the appeal has been made out. Accordingly this application is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member-Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi. After the order was dictated wit

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

h her consent, she informed that she may not be available for about 2-3 weeks due to her treatment. Therefore this order is being signed by the President, keeping in view the Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25-02-2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) – P.K. Jose – Vrs. – M. Aby & Ors.