BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.NO.806 OF 2020

(against the orders in CC.No.275/2018 on the file of the District Commission- Ranga Reddy

Between:

    Jitendra Jain,

    S/o. Late Sh Mangal Chand Jain,

Aged about 54 years, Occ: unemployed,

present residence,

E7/1, RCI Colony, RCI Road, P.O.,

Vignyana Kancha, P.O., Hyderabad – 500069,

(residence wef. 01 Jan 2021 shall be

Flat No.H28, 1302,

    AWHO, Sandeep Vihar,

    Whitefield – Hoskote Road,

    Kannamangala, Bengaluru,

    Karnataka – 560115.

    Email jitukrmobile@gmail.com             …Appellant/ Complainant

And

 1. Bharti Airtel Limited

     (A Bharti Enterprise) Bharti Crescent,

     1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

     Phase II, New Delhi-110070,

     Represented by it’s manager

2. Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

    Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan

    (next to Zakir Hussain College)

    Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road)

    New Delhi: 110002 E-mail ID:ap@trai.gov.in,

    Represented by its manager.  

....Respondents/Opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant:Sri Jitendra Jain(PIP)

Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties : M/s. Gopi Rajesh  

                                                                          Associates – R1

          : Sri Sudhakar Rao   

            Kulkarni-R4

QUORUM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE

*******

Oral Order:

1.    This is an appeal filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy passed in C.C.No.275 of 2018 dated 28.09.2020.

2.       In this batch of appeals, the Appellant Sri Jitendra Jain is said to have died on 23.04.2021.  Thereafter, this Commission has suo moto issued notices to the other Appellants/legal representatives of the deceased Jain, who are parties in the connected appeals and the same has been served as per the track record obtained from the postal authorities.  In spite of that, there is no appearance for the LRs/other Appellants in the connected appeals.  The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents are all present.  Since the deceased Appellant died more than seven months back, the appeal is liable to be dismissed has having been abated.

3.       Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.