Judgment:
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
(1) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune, hereinafter referred to as Forum Below by its order dated 12.03.2009, who was pleased to reject the application filed by Original Opposite Parties dated 02.09.2008. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
(2) Consumer Complaint No. 277/2004 is pending on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune. It was on sine die list. It was taken out from sine die list and notices were sent to both the parties by the District Forum. Opposite Parties appeared when notice was issued by District Forum, but, the Complainants did not turn up. Notice sent to the Complainants at Harekrishna Mandir Road, came back to the office of District Forum with the remark that âthe Complainants do not reside at that address. The 23.07.2008 was returnable date of notice sent by District Forum. The Forum below passed the following order:
âHeard. A notice addressed to the Complainant is returned unserved with postal remarks that âComplainant does not reside thereâ. The Complainant has not taken any effective steps to prosecute the complaint. The complaint is therefore disposed of for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.
(3) However, on the very next day the forum below passed another order and set aside the order passed on earlier date and directed to reissue notice to the parties by giving correct name of the Complainants and their legal representative and also to the Opposite Parties and made notice returnable on 02.09.2008. Accordingly on 02.09.2008 both the parties appeared. On 02.09.2008 itself, Opposite Parties Advocate filed application and prayed that order dated 24.07.2008 which declared as null and void and order dated 23.07.2008 which declared as final and complaint should be disposed of in terms of order passed on 23.07.2008. This application was ultimately turned down by the impugned order dated 12.03.2009. Aggrieved by this order dated 12.03.2009, the Opposite Parties have filed this Revision Petition.
(4) We heard submissions of Mr. M.M. Shah, Advocate for Revision Petitioners and Ms. Supriya Mharolkar for Respondents. We are finding that order passed on 12.03.2009 by the forum below on the application moved by Opposite Parties dated 02.09.2008 was rightly rejected by the forum below. In as much as forum found that after Complaint No. 277/2004 was taken out from sine die list, forum had issued notice to both the parties, returnable date for notice was 23.07.2008. On that day Complainant was absent, Counsel for Opposite Parties was present and forum below read postal endorsement on the notice to the effect that âComplainant does not reside thereâ. That notice was returned unserved and forum below in its wisdom passed an order that Complainants had not taken any steps to prosecute the complaint, complaint therefore is disposed of for want of prosecution and no order as to costs. This order was passed on 23rd July, 2008 and on the very next day, forum below read postal acknowledgment once again and found that, prima-facie both the Complainants were resident of Hongkong and case has been filed through their representative residing at Harekrishna Mandir Road, Pune and notice was sent to Harekrishna Road address, but, addressed to Mr. Ravikumar Budhraja and Mrs. Rita Budhraja, both of them are resident of Hongkong. The mistake committed by forum below was learnt by forum below after forum below read postal endorsement carefully on the envelop of notice returned unserved and forum below was of the view that notice ought to have been sent to the representative of Complainant at Pune. The forum below found that though notice was sent to the address of representative of the Complainants, name of the representative was not mentioned on the packet containing notice. The names of the Complainants were mentioned on the notice, but address was of their representative. In the circumstances, postal endorsement simply mentioned, âcomplainants do not reside on the address and returned notice unserved. When these facts became crystal clear, the forum below in its judicial wisdom thought it fit that through inadvertence it had disposed of complaint for want of prosecution though there was no proper service on the Complainants or their authorized representative, resident of Pune. Hence, on following day, i.e. on 24th July, 2008 the forum below set aside its order, dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, passed on 23rd July, 2008 and directed to reissue of notice to both the parties by giving correct names of the Complainants and their legal representatives address of Pune and addressed notice to Opposite Parties and made it returnable on 02.09.2008. So, the complaint earlier dismissed for want of prosecution was restored and notices were reissued to both the parties. Accordingly, on 02.09.2009, Opposite Parties filed application praying that complaint should be held to have been finally disposed of by its order dated 23.07.2008 and order passed by District Forum on 24.07.2008 should be deemed as null and void and the complaint should be disposed of in terms of order dated 23.07.2008. It is this application which was turned down by the forum below and as such the Opposite Parties have filed this Revision Petition.
(5) We have perused all the three orders passed by Forum below. In the main order passed by the forum, rejecting revision petitioners application dated 02.09.2008, the forum below has relied upon Supreme Court ruling in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Rajendra Singh and Others (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1165), in which case Honble Supreme Court also relied upon its earlier ruling reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2592 (India Bank V/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Limited), the Supreme Court held in this case that the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside the order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. Similarly, where the court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the court has inherent power to recall its order. Relying this ratio of the Supreme Court, the Ld. District Forum has exercised its power to recall its order dated 23.07.2008 and correct order was passed on 24.07.2008 and application objecting to such exercise of powers filed by the original Opposite Parties dated 02.09.2008 was decided by the District Forum, Pune, by its order dated 12.03.2009 and objection was turned down and this order is called in question by filing this Revision Petition.
(6) We are finding that the forum below had itself committed mistake while passing the order dated 23.07.2008. That mistake was rectified by the forum below on the next day by passing order dated 24th July, 2008. Relying on Supreme Court ruling mentioned supra, the forum below turned down the objection application filed by Opposite Parties dated 02.09.2008 by passing 5 paged order dated 12.03.2009. After going through all these orders, we are satisfied that in the interest of justice the forum below rightly rejected the application moved by Revision Petitioner dated 02.09.2008 by its order dated 12.03.2009. Forum had committed mistake in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, particularly when notice sent to the Complainants was found to be defective and not proper. In the notice sent by the forum after taking out the complaint out of sine die list, notice was addressed to the Complainants on the address written as Harekrishna Mandir Road, Pune, which was the residential address of authorised representative of the Complainant, in fact Complainants are resident of Hongkong (they are N.R.I.) and they have filed this complaint through their authorised representative, who is resident of Pune. So, notice should have been sent by the forum below to the representative of Complainants resident of Pune, so the notice sent to the Complainants to the address of their legal representative was erroneous and improper and based on such defective notice the forum below committed mistake in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution on 23rd July, 2008, which was rectified by it by passing order dated 24th July, 2008. The said order was legal and proper in the circumstance obtainable. The District Forum has got inherent powers to rectify its own mistake and this power is required to be exercised in the situation like this. Therefore, forum below committed no error in restoring the complaint on file and reissuing the notice to both the parties returnable on 02.09.2008 and forum below committed no mistake when it rejected application made by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 dated 02.09.2008. The said order passed by the District Forum on 12.03.2009 is legal and sustainable in law and forum below committed no mistake apparent on the face of record. Interest of justice warranted passing of such order by the Ld. District Forum Pune. The parties are advised to prosecute the complaint as restored by the forum below. We are finding no substance in Revision Petition filed by the original Opposite Parties and pass the following order:
Order:
(1) Revision Petition stands dismissed.
(2) Stay, if any, stands vacated.
(3) No order as to costs.
(4) Inform the parties accordingly.