At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DINESH SINGH
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
For the Petitioner: Nemo. For the Respondents: R1, Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, R2, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocates.
1. This revision has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.06.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 769 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 29.11.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 586 of 2011
2. Repeatedly called out.
No one appears for the petitioner.
Learned proxy counsel are present on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and no. 2.
3. The complaint was filed in the year 2011. The District Commission passed its Order in 2012. The State Commission passed its Order in 2013. The instant revision petition before this Commission was filed in 2013. We are now in 2022. A perusal of the daily Orders from 30.08.2013 onwards reflects unfavourably on the way and manner in which the petition has been procrastinated. It is noticed that on numerous occasions in the past also no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It is also noted that the District Commission vide its Order dated 29.11.2012 had allowed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 04.06.2013 had dismissed the appeal. As such this petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.
4. In this overall context, we have no qualms in dismissing the case in default in the absence of the petitioner today.
As such the revision petition stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
5. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the p
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
arties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.