Telangana High Court
Branch Manager vs Union Of India on 3 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Writ Petition No.2512 of 2024
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed in
Review Application No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017
by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Hyderabad, the present Writ Petition is
filed.
2. Heard Sri V.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader
for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had
contended that respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint
against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer
Forum, Mahabubnagar vide C.C.No.43 of 2014, alleging
certain deficiencies against the petitioner and the
District Consumer Forum was pleased to partly allow
::2::
the complaint vide order, dated 31.07.2017 and directed
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.59,598/- along
with the interest @ 18% per annum from November,
2013 till the date of realisation to the petitioner and to
pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and imposed a
cost of Rs.1000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31.07.2017, the
petitioner has preferred the appeal to the Telangana
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Hyderabad, by filing F.A.No.322 of 2017. However, on
20.12.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner could not
appear before the State Commission and as a result, the
State Commission dismissed the appeal for default. In
those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed
Review Application No.6 of 2023 in F.A.No.322 of 2017,
seeking to re-call the order of dismissal for default.
However, the State Commission has dismissed the
Review Application vide order, dated 05.09.2023 with an
observation that the State Commission has no power to
::3::
recall its own orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Writ Petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our
attention to the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi v. Andhra
Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission and another 1, wherein, the Division
Bench of this Court has held that the Tribunal has
quasi-judicial authority and the power to recall its own
orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further
contended that in view of the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court (supra), the order passed by
the State Consumer is liable to be set aside and let the
matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear
the appeal on its merits and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had further contended that notices have been served on
respondent No.3, but in spite of service of notice,
1996 CJ (AP) 724
::4::
respondent No.3 has not appeared. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed to that effect.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 had contended that
in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi's case(supra), let
the order, dated 05.09.2023 passed by the State
Commission in R.A.No.6 of 2023 be set aside and the
matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear
the appeal on its merits, instead of dismissing the
appeal for default.
7. This Court, having considered the submissions
made by both the parties, is of the view that the order,
dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 is contrary
to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in Meesa Varalakshmi's case (supra). Therefore, the
order dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 in
F.A.No.322 of 2017 is liable to be set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the State Commission to hear
::5::
R.A.No.6 of 2023 on its merits, in view of the law laid
down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned
judgment.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the
order, dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2023 in
F.A.No.322 of 2017 by the Telangana State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, is set aside.
No order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_____________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 03.04.2025
prat
::6::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 03.04.2025
prat
