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



Nirulas Potpourri A Unit of South Asian Hospitality Service Pvt. Ltd. v/s Manoj Kumar Gupta

    Revision Petition No. 96 of 2013

    Decided On, 23 October 2013

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Shalabh Singhal, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----



Judgment Text

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1768 of 2011 – Nirula’s Potpourri Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was member of OP/petitioner and OP issued coupon to the complainant for discount at the time of dinner at OP-restaurant. On 6.11.2009, complainant along with his family members went to OP No. 2 for dinner and OP issued bill for Rs.2071.45 in which Rs.119.354 was charged for service and Rs.219/- and Rs.28/- for tax without mentioning type of tax and thus charged illegal tax. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP was proceeded ex-parte and learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.366.45 along with 9% p.a. interest and further directed OP to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with State Consumer Welfare Fund and also allowed cost of Rs.2500/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

4. Petitioner has filed revision petition along with application for condonation of delay of 157 days, but as per office report, there is delay of 150 days. Petitioner submitted that papers were handed over to Counsel for filing revision petition in July, 2012, but Counsel did not file revision petition and in the last week of December, 2012, he expressed inability to file revision petition and in such circumstances, the matter was handed over to the present Counsel on 3.1.2013 and revision petition was filed on 9.1.2013 and prayed for condonation of delay. No doubt, there is inordinate delay of 150 days in filing revision petition, but as impugned order is non-speaking order as well as appeal was filed for setting aside ex-parte order whereas learned State Commission dismissed appeal without any reasoning and District Forum while allowing refund of excess tax, imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing revision petition subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission.

5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is not a speaking order and learned State Commission has observed as under:

'The subordinate district forum has passed the order after detailed analysis of all the facts and evidences of the case and therefore we do not find any justification for re-appreciation of all the facts and evidences of the case.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the Led. District Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 314/2010. Since the District Forum has rightly appreciated the facts brought on record therefore there is no ground for interference. Besides that on the merits also there seems to be no substance in the appeal'.

6. Hon’ble Apex Courtin (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:

'1. In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’.

2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission'.

7. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.

8. Perusal of order sheet of District Forum reveals that petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on the basis of presumption as notice sent by Regd. Post not received back and more than one month had already passed. Petitioner filed appeal with a request to set aside ex-parte order on the ground that notice was not received by the petitioner and learned State Commission vide impugned order has not given any reason regarding ex-parte order and dismissed appe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

al on merits without speaking order. In such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed and matter deserves remand. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1768 of 2011 – Nirula’s Potpourri Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide the appeal by a reasoned speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 10. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 28.11.2013.
O R