RAJASTHAN MEDICAL STORE NATHDWARA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR DAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party-appellant has filed this appeal under s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) (which for the sake of brevity hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") against the order dt. 12-6-89 passed in Complaint Case No. 49/89. THE District Forum, Udaipur by its order dt. 12-6-89 held that the preliminary objection raised by the opposite-party cannot be accepted and, therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled. THE District Forum further directed by the same order to pay to the complainant Rs. 500/-as costs to meet the expenses of coming and going for he had come to attend the hearing of the case. Against this order the appeal has been filed. THE appellant has not mentioned the specific provision of the Act under which this appeal has been filed against the order overruling the preliminary objection and awarding costs. It is not necessary to make a detailed probe into the question whether this appeal is maintainable under s. 15 of the Act against the interim order passed during the pendency of the complaint which is not a final order under s. 14 of the Act. We have treated such appeals as revisions under s. 17 (b) of the Act. We propose to decide this appeal treating it as a revision.

(2.) THE appellant has not appeared before us. It has been provided in rule 8 (6) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987 ("the Rules") that on the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or their authorised agents to appear before the State Commission. Material part of rule 8 (6) of the Rules for the present purpose is as follows : "if appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the State Commission may decide the appeal on the merits of the case. If respondent or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the State Commission shall proceed ex-parte and shall decide the appeal ex-parte on merits of the case. " In the absence of any provision in the Rules in regard to revision, the same procedure in regard to the appeals is mutatis mutandis applicable to revisions. We, therefore propose to decide this appeal (treating it as a revision) on merits in the absence of the appellant.

(3.) ORDER pronounced on August 9, 1989. .