Maharashtra

Pune

CC/17/36

Altaf Husain Abdul Majeed Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UTI Technology Services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2017

ORDER

PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
PUNE
Shri V. P. Utpat, PRESIDENT
Shri Onkar G. Patil, MEMBER
Smt. K. B. Kulkarni, MEMBER
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/36
 
1. Altaf Husain Abdul Majeed Khan
Add. Flat No. 1 Vijay Raj Apartment New Era Society Market Yard Pune 411037
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. UTI Technology Services Ltd
Venkateshwara Complex 1st Floor Bhau Bhau Maharaj Lane Bajirao Road Shukruwar Peth Pune 411002
2. 2. UTI Techology Services Ltd
Head Office Plot No. 3 Sector II CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai 400614
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. V. P. UTPAT PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Onkar G. Patil MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Kshitija Kulkarni MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 14 Mar 2017
Final Order / Judgement

ORAL ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. V. P. Utpat, President

          None present for the Complainant even on second call.  Today, Complainant failed to appear before this Forum without any sufficient reason.  This consumer complaint is not yet admitted and it is listed before this Forum for hearing on the point of admission.  Perusal of the order-sheet reveals that on 04/02/2017, Complainant failed to appear before this Forum without any sufficient reason.  However, in larger interest of justice, consumer complaint was adjourned to 27/02/2017 either for hearing on admission or passing further suitable order.  On 27/02/2017, Complainant’s father appeared before this Forum and sought grant of time on the ground of personal difficulty of advocate.  Again, time was granted to the Complainant and the complaint was adjourned till today.  As observed, even today Complainant failed to appear before this Forum without any sufficient reason and thus, Complainant failed to prima-facie make out a sufficient good case for admission.  In these peculiar circumstances, it does appear to this Forum that Complainant is not interested in further prosecution of present consumer complaint.  Hence, consumer complaint is not admitted and stands dismissed for want of prosecution in accordance with the provisions of Section-13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule-4(7) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000.  No order as to costs.

Pronounced on 14th March, 2017

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. V. P. UTPAT]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Onkar G. Patil]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Kshitija Kulkarni]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.