Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member

          Today when the matter is called out, the Applicant/Appellant is absent.  This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant challenging the order dated 2/7/2011 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.714 of 2009, Mr. Mahesh Revachand Khanna Vs.  Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and Another.  By the said order, the consumer complaint was dismissed on finding that the original Complainant was remaining continuously absent and he was not interested to prosecute complaint.  As such, under Section-13(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint was dismissed.  As against this order, this appeal has been filed.  Today, the Applicant/Appellant chose to remain absent.  He has not complied with the earlier orders dated 21/9/2011 passed by the State Commission in Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No.475 of 2011.  This Commission had directed to issue notice on the delay condonation application to the Non-Applicants/Respondents.  Today’s date was returnable date.  Office endorsement mentions that the Applicant/Appellant has not come with requisite papers and postage charges for issuance of notice to the Non-Applicants/ Respondents and hence, notice could not be issued to the Non-Applicants/Respondents.  Thus, what we find is that like in the District Forum, in this appeal also, the Applicant/Appellant is exhibiting callousness and indifference in not prosecuting this appeal diligently and hence, on this ground alone, for want of notice served or sent to the Non-Applicants/Respondents we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application No.475 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.776 of 2011.  Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration.  Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced and dictated on 02^nd February, 2012