w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Bombay Thermal Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v/s Samaj Sevak Mahavir Dal

    Miscellaneous Petition No. 286 of 2002 in First Appeal No. 384 of 1994

    Decided On, 07 January 2003

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Appellant: Mr. Mayank Desai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Mr. Justice D. P. Wadhwa, President

This is an application filed on 18.11.2002 seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 5.4.1999. The appeal was filed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.4.1994.

2. It is stated that Mr. Rizwan Ahmed was manager of the appellant-Company and was looking after the legal affairs. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate was engaged as Counsel for the appellant in the matter who had put in his appearance. Mr. Rijwan Ahmed is then stated to have left the services of the appellant on 1.11.1994 without apprising the appellant of the status of the appellant. According to the appellant nothing was heard of the appeal till it received a notice dated 13.8.2002 from the State Commission in execution. This notice was returnable on 8.10.2002. It is only thereafter that this application for restoration came to be filed. We have examined the record which has been filed. Earlier the appeal was dismissed in default on 14.7.1994 and was restored. Thereafter on 25.8.1998 Mr. Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the appellant, undertook to file the correct address of the respondent No. 2 and notice was directed to be issued to the second respondent. On 11.2.1999 nobody appeared for the appellant.

3. This Commission, therefore, directed fresh notice be issued to the Advocate for the appellant as well as on the appellant itself. On the adjourned date since nobody appeared for the appellant the appeal was dismissed in default. Nothing has been said in the application seeking restoration of the appeal as to why Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned Counsel for the appellant did not appear and when the appellant came to know about the execution was any attempt made to contact Mr. Shakeel Ahmed. As far as notice on the appellant is concerned it is stated that it had "either not been served to the Company or have gone astray". All these factors would show that there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. It was submitted by Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the appellant that interest of justice requires that matter be heard. As far as the aspect of interest of justice is concerned full opportunity was given to the appellant.

4. On two occasions appeal was dismissed in default and then when notice is concerned, it was issued both to the Counsel as well as to the appellant but no one appeared and no plausible explanation is offered f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

or non-appearance. It may also be noticed that notices are issued by the National Commission itself and it is no function of the National Commission to go on issuing notice again and again. In fact there is no merit in this appeal. This application is, therefore, dismissed.