AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adv. Neeraj Kumar Bhagat appeared for the Complainant.
In this case the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed in default on 18.03.2024 for want of prosecution because, after filing the complaint, the Complainant or his Authorized Counsel failed to appear on three consecutive hearings on 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024 & 18.03.2024.
The Complainant has moved an application for restoration of the complaint.
The Complainant has stated that he is residing at Patna, Bihar. He appointed a local Lawyer in Delhi but the Lawyer did not appear before the Authority on given dates due to the reasons best known to the said Lawyer. The Complainant has now changed the Counsel.
The Complainant has further stated that he will suffer substantial financial loss due to the mistake of Counsel and therefore, requested for restoration of the complaint to its original number and position.
However, the Complainant has failed to enclose any evidence with the application that he is residing in Patna, Bihar. The Complainant has also not explained why nobody appeared in this case on three consecutive hearings spread over three months. No Vakalatnama of the present Counsel has been filed along with the application for restoration.
In light of all above, there are no grounds to consider the request of the Complainant sympathetically.
However, considering the fact that dismissal of Complaint may cause substantial financial loss to Complainant, this Court takes a lenient view and allows the application for restoration subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid in Bhartkosh.
On payment of the cost, the complaint be restored to its original number and position.
List the case on 23.09.2024 at 2:30 pm for confirmation.