Divisional Controller, Mah. ... vs Baban S/O Sonasa Khandare
2016 Latest Caselaw 5192 Bom

                                                                                            wp2000.15.odt

                                                          1




                                                                                              
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                    
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.2000/2015

         PETITIONER:                Divisional Controller, Maharashtra




                                                                   
                                    State Road Transportation Corporation, 
                                    Division Office Camp, Amravati. 

                                                       ...VERSUS...




                                                   
         RESPONDENT :      Baban s/o Sonasa Khandare
                           President of Consumer Society, 
                             
                           Anjangaon Surji, District. Amravati.

         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            
                           Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for petitioner 
                           Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI   A   NAIK, J.

                                                      DATE      : 06.09.2016 
   



         ORAL JUDGMENT   

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioner - Maharashtra State

Road Transport Corporation, Amravati challenges the order of the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur, dated

16.1.2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, in default.

The respondent had filed a complaint before the Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum at Amravati under Section 12 of the Consumer

wp2000.15.odt

Protection Act. The complaint of the respondent was partly allowed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 7.1.2009. Against the

order of the Forum the petitioner - Corporation had filed an appeal

bearing Appeal No.554/2002. The appeal was pending before the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai and the same was

transferred to Nagpur at the end of the year 2013. The petitioner -

Corporation was informed about the transfer of the appeal to the Circuit

Bench at Nagpur. According to the petitioner, before the petitioner -

Corporation could engage a Counsel to prosecute the appeal that was

transferred to the Circuit Bench at Nagpur, the appeal was dismissed in

default by an order, dated 16.1.2014 for the non-appearance of the

petitioner or its Counsel before the Circuit Bench on 16.1.2014.

Shri Wankhede, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states

that this Court may take a lenient view in the matter and set aside the

impugned order. It is stated that before a Counsel could be engaged by

the petitioner - Corporation for prosecuting the appeal that was

transferred to Nagpur at the fag end of 2013, the appeal was dismissed for

want of prosecution by the order, dated 16.1.2014. It is stated that in the

circumstances of the case, by taking a lenient view, this Court may set

aside the order of Commission and remand the matter to the Commission

for further hearing of the appeal on merits.

wp2000.15.odt

Shri Joharapurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent

has supported the order of the Commission and submitted that when the

petitioner was not represented by a Counsel before the Commission in the

morning session and in the evening session, the Commission had no other

course open but to dismiss the appeal.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears

that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner - Corporation

for prosecuting the appeal. It is conspicuous to note that not only was the

petitioner absent before the Commission on 16.1.2014 but the respondent

was also absent before the Commission on the said date. None had

appeared on behalf of the parties before the Commission on 16.1.2014. It

is not in dispute that the appeal was pending before the Commission at

Mumbai before it was transferred to Nagpur in the year 2013. In the

circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe the case of the petitioner

that before the petitioner - Corporation could engage a Counsel for

prosecuting the appeal at Nagpur, the appeal was dismissed by the

impugned order. In any case, since, the appeal is not dismissed on merits

and the default on the part of the Corporation is not on several occasions,

it would be necessary to set aside the impugned order and remand the

matter to the Commission for a decision in the appeal on merits.

wp2000.15.odt

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Commission

is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, in

accordance with law. The parties undertake to appear before the Circuit

Bench of the Commission at Nagpur on 26.09.2016 so that issuance of

notice to the parties could be dispensed with.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

JUDGE

Wadkar

wp2000.15.odt

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct

copy of original signed judgment.

Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 07/09/2016