Case nº First Appeal No. 149 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 20/11/2015 in Complaint No. 13/2015 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 30, 2016 (case 1. Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Patil and Anr. 2. Smt. Sangeeta Vs Dr. Vinay Tule)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh B. Mandpe, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. A. Vishwarupe, Advocate |
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member |
| Resolution Date | November 30, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member (Oral)
-
This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Maharashtra dated 20-11-2015 whereby the consumer complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed for non-prosecution. The relevant order is reproduced as under:
None is present for the complainant at 11.00 A.M. when the complaint is taken up for hearing. Advocate Saoji is present for OP and he submitted that on last two dates complainant has not appeared and that he has not yet received complaint compilation. Hence, he requested that the complaint may be dismissed in default. Perusal of the earlier daily proceedings shows that the advocate of the complainant had lastly appeared on 09-04-2015, but none appeared for the complainant on last two dates i.e. 10-07-2015 and 08-10-2015. Moreover, the complainant has not furnished complaint compilation to the OP despite giving direction by this Commission to that effect. Therefore, the complaint came to be adjourned till this date for appropriate order. However, today also none appeared for the complainant. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed in default. It be called at the end of the board for appropriate order.
Complaint is recalled at the end of the board today. Presently also none appeared for the complainant though Adv. Saoji is present for OP. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in default.
-
The learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that absence of the complainant or his counsel on the relevant date of hearing was unintentional. The complainant was under the impression that his counsel would take care of the date of hearing. The counsel could not appear because of wrong noting of the date on the brief by his clerk. Learned counsel has further contended that the restoration of complaint will not cause any prejudice to the opposite party because in that event complaint would be decided on merits.
-
Learned counsel, Mr. Vishwarupe, Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the instant complaint is nothing but a ploy to extract money from the opposite party and the opposite party is being harassed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial