AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 01.04.2014 of the State Commission in complaint no. 13 of 2012.
2 The case was called out in turn. The learned counsel for the respondent complainant was present. A learned proxy counsel appeared for the appellant and requested for a pass-over (the learned proxy counsel has not entered his / her name in the attendance-sheet). The case was passed-over. The learned proxy counsel assured that the learned counsel would argue the matter by around 1.00 p.m. positively.
The case was again called out at around 1.00 p.m. and then again at around 1.30 p.m. The learned counsel for the respondent complainant was present. The learned counsel for the appellant was not present, neither was the learned proxy counsel (who had appeared in the first call in the morning) present.
We note that the complaint was instituted before the State Commission in 2012, the State Commission passed its Order in 2014, the appeal was filed before this Commission in 2014, we are now in 2022. We also see the way and manner in which the appeal has been procrastinated since 2014 onwards, for almost 08 years now.
The previous Order dated 07.12.2021 is reproduced below for reference:
Sole appellant died on 22.01.2019. IA/9398/2019 has been filed for substituting his heirs. No objection has been filed to this I.A. IA is allowed. Amended memo of parties be supplied within 15 days.
List on 23.02.2022.
We find that the details of the legal heirs and the amended memo of the parties have not been filed till today.
We have perused the record. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the State Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. On the face of it, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.
However, without entering into the merits of the case in any great detail, keeping in view the unreasonable procrastination of the appeal for almost 08 years now, and in the wake of the background that despite opportunity legal heirs are not being substituted, and seeing that even the counsel is not appearing today, we have no hesitation to dismiss the appeal in non-prosecution and in default.
The appeal no. 338 of 2014 stands dismissed in non-prosecution and in default.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeal immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.