Delhi

North East

MA/15/2023

NITIN TUTLANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARK VIEW CITY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

M.A No. 15/23 in RBT/Complaint Case No. 249/22

 

 In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Nitin Tutlani, S/o Shri Ram Saran Tutlani, H. No. 68, Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi 110034	Complainant/Applicant
	Versus
1.	Park View City Limited (Shri Vishnu Traders Pvt. Ltd), Through Director, F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area Ph. 1, New Delhi 110020	Opposite Party

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

1. This order shall dispose off an appeal against order dated 21.09.2023 whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the file. The case of the Applicant i.e. the Counsel for the Complainant is that he suffered a brain stroke and paralytic stroke and he was in comma. Due to his illness he could not attend the court as he was bed ridden. His case is that his clerk also met with a road accident. It is his case that the Complainant is out of India.
2. The perusal of the file shows that the complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 21.09.2023. Against this order the Counsel for the Complainant has filed the present appeal. It is worth mentioning that this Commission cannot sit in appeal over its own order and therefore this appeal is not maintainable.
3. The case of the Applicant i.e. Counsel for the Complainant is that he could not attend the court as he had suffered a brain stroke and was unable to attend the case. The perusal of this appeal shows that this is silent regarding the date when the Counsel for the Complainant suffered the brain stroke and the period for which he was confined to bed. Even the Complainant has not filed any affidavit to show that during the said period he did not attend any court. The case of the Applicant i.e. Counsel for the Complainant is that the Complainant is out of India and he is in Canada, however, no document has been annexed along with the application in this regard.
4. The perusal of the file shows that this was not the single date when the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Prior to this date, on four consecutive dates, none has appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Even prior to this, the appearance of the Complainant/ his Counsel before the Commission is not satisfactory.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the  application and the same is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 18.01.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties at free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)    President