1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4034 of 2008 Deviprabha and ors v. Subhashchandra and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Shantanu Khedkar, Adv holding for Mr A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv for petitioners Mr S.N. Kumar, Adv for respdts 1 and 2 Mr S.J. Jichkar, AGP for respondent no.3. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 20th January 2009 1. Heard Mr Shantanu Khedkar, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr S.N. Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr S.J. Jichkar, learned AGP for respondent no.3. Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur whereby revision filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 came to be allowed without giving notice to the present petitioner who is respondent in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.3 Commission without giving opportunity to the petitioner decided the revision filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 against the order dated 25th July 2008 passed by the Consumer Forum and permitted respondents no. 1 and 2 to delete compensation clause from complaint whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed by the complainants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order being in breach of principles of natural justice, it cannot be sustained in law. 3. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and learned Asst. Government Pleader for respondent no.3 have supported the impugned order. 4. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by respective parties. In the instant case, respondents no. 1 and 2/ complainants moved an application before the Consumer Forum seeking permission to delete prayer clause (iii) which related to claim for Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Consumer Forum rejected the application, however, respondent no.3 State Commission allowed revision of respondents no. 1 and 2 and permitted deletion of the said prayer clause. It is, no doubt, true that any order which causes prejudice directly or indirectly to the other side should not be passed without following the principles of natural justice. 3 However, in the instant case, respondents no. 1 and 2 as complainants were entitled to give up their claim in the complaint wholly or in part. By the impugned order, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Even otherwise, complainants are entitled to abandon part of the claim made in the complaint if such withdrawal does not cause prejudice to the other side. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. Judge. Judge. hsj