NCDRC

NCDRC

OP/287/2002

M/S. ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.P.S. RAO,

17 Mar 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 287 OF 2002
 
1. M/S. ANANTH TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
PLOT NO. 1299 K, ROAD NO. 66, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH
500 033
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. & ANR.
WEST MINISTER, 1ST FLOOR, 108, RADHA KRISHNA SLAI, MYLAPUR, CHENNAI
TAMILNADU
600 004
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Complainant :NEMO
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. O.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate for no.1
Mr.Sandeel Narain, Advocate for no.2

Dated : 17 Mar 2011
ORDER

The matter was taken up at 12.30 p.m. None present for the Complainant. Counsel for Opposite Parties nos.1 and 2 present. Notice of Complainant has been received back with postal endorsement ddressee Left The complaint was admitted on 12.11.2002. On 26.8.2004 Complainant was asked to file rejoinder alongwith affidavit evidence within 6 weeks. On that day no one was actually appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Thereafter the matter came up before the Commission on 14.2.2005. On that day Counsel for the Complainant sought further time to file rejoinder as also affidavit evidence which was granted by this Commission as last opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.5000/- with NCDRC Bar Association (Legal Aid) and further subject to the condition that the Complainant files rejoinder alognwith affidavit evidence within a period of 4 weeks. The matter thereafter came up before this Commission on 16.11.2009 and on that day Counsel for the Complainant sought discharge and Counsel for the Complainant was directed to give proper notice of discharge to the Complainant. Thereafter on 8.2.2010 Counsel for the Complainant appeared but neither costs were paid nor rejoinder as well as affidavit evidence was filed nor any notice was placed on record for discharge of advocate for the Complainant. Thereafter the matter came up on 5.4.2010. On that day Advocate Ms. A. Subhashini appeared but order dated 14.2.2005 was not complied with. Thereafter the matter came up on 13.5.2010 when Advocate for the Complainant appeared and sought 4 weeks time to file affidavit evidence by way of affidavit. The Registrar of this Commission gave last opportunity to file rejoinder as also affidavit by way of evidence in spite of the fact that there was no compliance of order dated 14.2.2005. The matter then came up before the Registrar on 22.7.2010 and again Counsel for the Complainant was given last opportunity to file evidence by way of affidavit by the Registrar. Neither rejoinder nor affidavit evidence has been filed so far by the Complainant in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to it. The notice sent to Complainant has returned unserved with postal endorsement ddressee Left Notice was sent to Counsel for the Complainant by Regd. A.D. on 3.2.2011. However, Counsel for the Complainant has not appeared. In view of the above, the complaint is hereby dismissed for non prosecution as also for non-compliance of order dated 14.2.2005 with costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.

 
......................J
R.K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
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.