This is a case where an appeal filed in the year 2002 by the concerned Railway Authorities has been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution, after full ten years on 07.11.2012.  While dismissing the appeal, the State Commission has observed as under:

          “The list has been revised.  Despite the uploading of the list of the cases on the website of the commission and despite being showed on its Internet and after the sufficient information also, nobody is present on behalf of the parties today at the time of hearing.  Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid that the appellant does not have any interest in the proceedings of the appeal.  Accordingly because of absence of both the parties, this case is liable to be rejected in the absence of the pairavi.”

2.      I have heard Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner, who is unable to throw any additional light on what were the compulsive reasons, which prevented the appellant from expeditiously conducting its case before the State Commission.  Learned counsel only argues that he had a good case on merit.  He also argues that the delays of this nature do some time occur in the case of Government Departments.  Both these arguments can find no legs to stand on, in the background of the shark reality that the revision petitioner had more than ample opportunity to conduct this case on merits before the State Commission.

3.      It is necessary to remind litigants like the present revision petitioner that the entire scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stands on a different footing.  A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons with which the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is enacted, would show that the legislation has been brought with the specific objects to provide better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for establishment of consumer fora for settlement of disputes and matter connected therewith.  The proclaimed object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal of disputes through quasi-judicial machinery.  These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe principles of natural justice and have the power to give appropriate relief to the consumer.

4.      In the above background, I find no scope for disagreement with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissal of the appeal, on the ground of non-prosecution by the present revision petitioner, is consequently upheld and the revision petition stands dismissed.