AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.A. No. 280 of 2022 (For restoration of appeal)
This application seeks restoration of first appeal no. 1623 of 2019 which was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution vide this Commission’s Order dated 12.10.2021.
The Order of 12.10.2021 is reproduced below for reference:
Dated: 12.10.2021
ORDER
Taken up through video conferencing.
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.03.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 43 of 2016.
The matter relates to a builder–buyer dispute.
The appeal is listed for hearing on admission.
No one appears for the appellants, i.e. the builder co. and its managing director.
We have perused the record, including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 18.03.2019, the memorandum of appeal and the proceedings before this Commission.
The State Commission vide its impugned Order has provided two alternative reliefs, to complete the construction of the subject unit as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and to hand over its possession to the complainant within two months of receipt of a copy of its order, or, in the alternative, to refund the amount of Rs. 33,08,494/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till the date(s) of realization. Compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and cost of litigation of Rs. 25 thousand have also been awarded.
In its memorandum of appeal the appellants have prayed to set aside the State Commission’s Order and dismiss the complaint. No mention is made apropos the continuing retention of the amount deposited by the complainant.
That being as it may be, we note that the appeal was filed before this Commission on 07.08.2019.
On 22.08.2019 learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the learned arguing counsel made a submission that the matter is likely to be settled between the parties and sought an adjournment. An adjournment was granted.
On 23.10.2019 learned counsel for the appellant sought an adjournment. An adjournment was granted.
On 20.01.2020 at the request of learned proxy counsel for the appellants an adjournment was granted. It was also made clear that no further adjournment will be provided on the next date.
On 24.01.2020 learned counsel for the appellant made a submission on instructions that the appellants are exploring the possibility of a voluntary amicable equitable settlement. The case was adjourned, to report settlement, if any, or to otherwise argue on admission on the next date.
On 27.02.2020 learned counsel for the appellants made a submission on instructions that a further time of one week may be granted to explore the possibility of a settlement. The case was adjourned, to report settlement, if any, or to otherwise argue on admission on the next date.
On 17.09.2021 learned counsel for the appellants requested for a period of one week to attempt the possibility of a settlement. The case was adjourned.
On 08.10.2021 learned counsel for the appellants requested for a brief adjournment to argue the matter on admission. The case was adjourned.
Today, on 12.10.2021, no one appears for the appellants.
It is abundantly manifest that the case has been inordinately procrastinated in one way or the other by the appellants, the appeal filed in 2019 is as yet to be heard on admission in 2021.
Sufficient opportunity, and more, has been provided to the appellants to argue on admission.
In the above facts and circumstances, and in the absence of the appellants today, the instant appeal no. 1623 of 2019 is dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
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.
We have perused the record including this Commission’s Order dated 12.10.2021 and the application no. 280 of 2022 seeking its recall.
The Order dated 12.10.2021 is self-contained and self-speaking. A plain reading shows that sufficient opportunity, and more, was provided to the appellants, but the absence and remissness on their part justly and necessarily warranted dismissal of the appeal. No good or persuasive ground to restore the appeal is evident.
The miscellaneous application no. 280 of 2022 is dismissed. The Order dated 12.10.2021 stands as it stood.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.