AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 12.02.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 105 of 2018 vide which the complaint was dismissed in default as the complainant was not present on 04 occasions to pursue his case.
Repeatedly called out, intermittently.
No one appears on behalf of the appellant (the ‘complainant’ before the State Commission).
Mr. Rajesh R. Dubey, learned counsel is present for the respondent (the ‘opposite party’ before the State Commission).
On the preceding two dates i.e. on 24.05.2022 and on 18.01.2022 also no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.
In fact the appellant has appeared only once, i.e. on 02.05.2019, at the time of hearing on admission, when notice on the appeal and on the application for condonation of delay was ordered to be issued. Thereafter in proceedings before the court-master and in hearings before the bench the appellant has been consistently absent, there being not a single occasion on which he was present or represented.
Having regard to the obtaining situation, it appears appropriate to dismiss the appeal in default in the absence of the appellant yet again.
As such the appeal stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
However, still, to avoid eventuality of miscarriage of justice, liberty is granted to the appellant to revive his appeal if he so wishes within 30 days from today by filing appropriate application.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the two sides and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.