Haryana

StateCommission

CC/290/2019

SANJAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARKET COMMITTEE - Opp.Party(s)

ROSE GUPTA

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/290/2019
( Date of Filing : 29 Aug 2019 )
 
1. SANJAY
VPO NANGTHALA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. HISAR.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MARKET COMMITTEE
BARWALA. DISTT. HISAR.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  S . P . Sood PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 19 Dec 2023
Final Order / Judgement

C.C. No.290 of 2019                                                                  

 

Present:-    None for the complainant.

None for opposite parties.

 

 

                    On the previous date of hearing, Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, authorized counsel for the complainant has withdrawn his power of attorney on behalf of complainant namely Shri Sanjay. After this development, this Commission had issued notice to the complainant so that he may be appraised about this development, however, the said notice issued to the complainant has been received back with the report of that no such person in the name of the complainant resides in the said village. However, even no other alternative address is available on record at which complainant could be informed about this development. However, prior thereto this complaint was fixed for recording the evidence of complainant and perhaps this task could not be accomplished without the concurrence of complainant himself. In such a scenario, this Commission does not see any good reason to continue with the present complaint. Even, it was primarily for this reason of inability on the part of the complainant to approach through his authorized counsel Mr. Rose Gupta, that later was compelled to withdraw his power of attorney on his behalf. Accordingly, this entire set of events primarily indicate that perhaps complainant is not taking the present complainant seriously and that is why he is not in touch with his counsel and now it has become impossible for this Commission to approach him so that he could be advised to pursue with the present complaint further.

                   As such, this Commission is constrained to dismiss this complaint for want of prosecution because despite this complaint having been filing way back in the year 2019 and still complainant has not concluded its evidence. Even today case called several times since morning, but none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. It is already 1:30 P.M. Waited sufficiently. No further wait is justified. It appears that complainant is not interested to pursue with the present complaint.  As such, the present complaint is hereby stands dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

                   Needless to say that complainant will be within right to file a fresh complaint and in that even he will be protected from the limitation aspect. File be consigned to records.

 
 
[ S . P . Sood]
PRESIDING 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.