Item No.-6

10.01.2024

MA. No. 13/2024 in CC. No.-90/2022

Present: Sh. Akash Chauhan, Advocate for applicant/complainant. Vakalatnama dated 08.01.2024 is filed today (whereas an application was filed on 08.01.2024, it was not supplemented with any vakalatnama).

          Heard.

1.1 (Introduction)-What happened, the complaint CC. No. 90/2022 has been pending but the complainant was not appearing. Considering the non-appearance of complainant general notice was issued in his name to make appearance, the notice was served for 16.01.2023, the complainant had not appeared and no adverse order was passed on that day but the matter was posted for 07.03.2023 again complainant had not appeared on 07.03.2023, the complaint was dismissed in default for want of prosecution of complaint.

1.2 Thence, the complainant filed an application which was registered as MA-10/2023 and this application was filed on 14.09.2023, the application was under the signature of complainant Devender Kumar Mala but it was presented by Sh. Akash Chauhan, Advocate, the application was not accompanied with any vakalatnama with that application nor the application was endorsed through the counsel. The application remained pending for 09.10.2023, 23.10.2023, 25.10.2023 and 03.11.2023 for want of appearance of complainant and after waiting long on 03.11.2023 the application was dismissed for want of appearance.

1.3 On 08.01.2024, a new application (MA-13/2024) was filed under the signature of Sh. Akash Chauhan, Advocate and it was recorded as a proceedings of 08.01.2024 (on the face of application itself that there is no signature of the complainant/applicant as well as to put up the main file today).

          Today, vakalatnama in favaour of Sh. Akash Chauhan, Advocate is placed on record besides an application under the signature of counsel for applicant seeking exemption of complainant from his personal appearance today.

          The Ld. Counsel for complainant is enquired about the maintainability of this application in the background of facts and features recorded in paragraph 1.1 & 1.2 above besides whether the application is within period of limitation & could the Consumer District Commission may restore the complaint.

1.4 It is submitted that the complainant may bring application for condonation of delay, if any, and there is discretion with the Commission to pass appropriate order and considering the circumstances involved, the complaint may be restored.

2. The application is rejected for the following reasons:-

(i) As per Rule 14 (iv) of the Consumer Protection (CCP) Regulation 2020 that when no period of limitation is prescribed specifically for application, the same would be 30 days. Therefore, the application was filed on 08.01.2024 is after long time from the date of dismissal of complaint on 07.03.2023 and also from order dated 03.11.2023 of dismissal of previous application seeking restoration of complaint. Thus, on the face of it the present application is barred by time.

(ii) There is no provision shown that the District Consumer Redressal Commission may restore the complaint which was dismissed in default.

(iii) It does not need to decide the merit of the application, in view of the (i) & (ii) above.

3. Accordingly, application (MA-13/2024) is disposed off, however, the folder of MA-13/2024 will remain tag with the main file presented today. It be consigned to record room.