Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President No one is present on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the appellant Advocate Mr.Vinod Jadhav who is having office in the Advocates Association of Western India, Room no.18, High Court, Bombay has filed the vakalatnama. This appeal has been filed on 06/8/2009. It appeared before the State Commission on 13/11/2009 and when the matter was called in the morning session no one was present. In the afternoon session, board was discharged and, therefore, appeal was adjourned to 16/11/2009. On 16/11/2009 no one was present in the morning session when the appeal was called at 11.00 a.m. It was kept back and it was called for the second time at 1.20 p.m. Ld.counsel for the appellant was absent. Therefore, on imposing cost of `1000/-, appeal was adjourned to 03/12/2009. On 03/12/2009 one Mr.Abhay Jadhav –Advocate h/f.Mr.M.V.Jadhav appeared for the appellant and, therefore, notice before admission was issued to the respondent r/o.28/01/2010. Notices were issued to the other side. It appeared on 28/1/2010. One Mr.V.Jadhav-advocate for the appellant was present and Mr.Yogesh Sakpal –Advocate appeared for respondent no.3 and made a statement that he has instructions to appear in the matter on behalf of respondent no.3 and sought time to file vakalatnama. Since acknowledgement of respondent nos.1& 2 were not received, appellant was directed to file service affidavit as per section 28-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the appeal was adjourned to 10/3/2010. On 10/3/2010 we have noted a detailed order sheet stating all the facts that in what manner the dates were known to the advocates and how the clerk of the advocate attended the appeal. Ultimately, having found that the parties are remaining absent and after having found that Mr.Yogesh Sakpal-Advocate who assured to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3, we directed to issue fresh notice to respondent nos.1&2. Accordingly, notices were issued. Notices which were sent to respondent nos.1&2 have returned back unserved and, therefore, on 08/4/2010 the steps should have been taken by the appellant to serve the respondents. We also directed that if service is effected upon the respondents, service affidavit be filed. However, since then 2-3 dates have gone and no service affidavit has been filed and no further steps have been taken to serve respondent nos.1&2 and above all the advocates are continuously absent in the matter except on one or two occasions as recorded by us above in the matter. There are no satisfactory reasons reported to this Commission as to why advocates are remaining absent. Appellant is also absent and, therefore, it has become difficult for the State Commission to proceed in the matter. It appears that the grievance of the appellant is redressed otherwise than through the State Commission and, therefore, they are not interested in prosecuting the matter diligently, otherwise, appellant and/or their advocates would have consistently and regularly attended the appeal. Hence the order:- OPERATIVE ORDER Appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
