AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the petitioner. The challenge is to the order dated 12.06.2025 of the State Commission vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed for want of prosecution. The said order is reproduced below:
“The file has been presented. The appeal is defective. No one is present for the appellant at the time of hearing. Despite the Bench providing several opportunities, the appellant has not ensured the removal of the defects pointed out by the office till date, whereas as per the earlier order dated 19-03-2025 passed by the Bench, the following order was passed, giving the appellant an opportunity to remove the defects in the final form-"The file has been produced. An application for adjournment of the date has been filed by the appellant's counsel, Shri V.P. Sharma. The appellant has not ensured compliance with the order dated 08-11-2024. Therefore, if the defects are not removed within the next one week, then this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution and should be consigned to the record." But still the appellant has not ensured the removal of the defects pointed out by the office till date. As the defects pointed out in the appeal have not been removed by the appellant even after being given adequate opportunity, and no one appeared on behalf of the appellant during the hearing today. It appears that the appellant has lost all interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, in view of the absence of the appellant and non-compliance of the order dated 19-03-2025, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. The file should be consigned to the record. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal (if any) along with the accrued interest should be remitted to the District Commission as per law as soon as possible for legal disposal. This judgment/order should be uploaded to the Commission's website as soon as possible, as per the rules."
Earlier, the complaint filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on account of non-representation by the complainant. The said order dated 16.02.2024 of the District Commission is also reproduced below:
"File presented. Called out. Complainant absent. Learned counsel for the opposite party appeared. Called out repeatedly. No one is present on behalf of the complainant. The file has been perused and it is clear that the complainant has not appeared from several dates. It appears that the complainant has no interest in the hearing of this complaint. Therefore, in the absence and lack of representation of the complainant, the complaint is dismissed. The file should be consigned to the record."
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, the District Commission, and other relevant records. Although we find no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the fora below in dismissing the appeal/ complaint on account of non-appearance, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the submissions of the petitioner herein during the hearing, we hereby remand the matter back to the District Commission for fresh disposal of the complaint on merits after hearing both sides. This is subject to the imposition of cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner herein, to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Commission within three weeks from today. As soon as this amount is deposited, the District Commission may issue fresh notice to the OPs after reviving the CC/368/2018 and proceed to hear the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. In case the petitioner herein fails to deposit the amount, the remand order will stand withdrawn and RP will be deemed dismissed. Further, this is subject to the condition that the petitioner herein appears before the District Commission regularly and makes no default.
The RP stands disposed of as per the above orders.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.