AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 17.12.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 101 of 2018.
A perusal of the record shows that vide its impugned Order the State Commission has allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite parties i.e. the company and its managing director and three directors to pay a sum of Rs. 40 lakh to the complainants with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 09.09.2017 till realization along with Rs. 50 thousand on account of harassment and mental agony inclusive of cost of litigation.
This appeal has been filed by the one of the directors of the company, who was the opposite party no. 6 before the State Commission. The respondents no. 1 and no. 2 were the complainants and the respondents no. 3 to no. 9 were the opposite parties no. 1 to no. 5 and no. 7 & no. 8 before the State Commission.
On 25.07.2019 notice was ordered to be issued. On 02.12.2019 it was noted that the process could not be served upon the respondents as they were reported to have left the address and the appellant was directed to furnish the correct address of the respondents. The same does has not been furnished by the appellant till date. Accordingly the respondents (including the respondents no. 1 and no. 2, i.e. the complainants) have not been served till date even though the appeal was filed on 27.03.2019 more than three and a half years back.
Mr. Updip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is present. He submits that he has no instructions from the appellant and the appellant has not communicated with him since long. Submission is that he would not be able to assist in respect of the correct address of the respondents. Further submission is that he would not be able to ask for stay of the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission or give any commitment with regard to any condition concomitant with the grant of stay if the same is ordered by this Commission and also that he would also not be able to argue on the application for condonation of delay or on the memo of appeal in the total absence of instructions.
The appellant is not present.
This appears to be a clear case of non-prosecution.
As such the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.