District Forum dismissed the complaint in default of appearance.  Petitioner moved an application seeking restoration of the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum dismissed the application for restoration by its order dated 21.8.2012 for want of jurisdiction.  Petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by observing thus :

“We have gone through the impugned order and have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that in the instant case after filing the written statement by the respondent/opp.parties, case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant and several opportunities were given to the complainant on 1.5.2011, 24.3.2011, 26.5.2011, 18.8.2011, 10.10.2011 and 5.12.2011 to conclude his evidence.  Despite availing six opportunities for evidence, when complainant was not present on 5.12.2012, his complaint was dismissed in default, after calling twice i.e. at 12.45 P.M. and at 4.00 P.M.

The act and conduct of the appellant/complainant, itself shows that he is not interested for the disposal of his complaint, especially when he titled “M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal No.7532 of 2011 , which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.8.2011, it has been observed that courts should not be allowed more than three opportunities to conclude the evidence.  The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress take place in the suit.

However, by not leading any evidence, despite availing six opportunities, appellant/complainant wanted to delay the proceedings of the case and filing of this appeal is second attempt on his part, which is against the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that complaint should be decided within a period of six months.”

        Even on the second call, counsel for the petitioner is not present.  Dismissed for non-prosecution.