Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

A/03/696

KIRLOSKAR INVISTMENTS & FINANCE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. MIRA CHAKRABORTY - Opp.Party(s)

DANDIGE

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
First Appeal No. A/03/696
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/357/2000 of District State Commission)
 
1. KIRLOSKAR INVISTMENTS & FINANCE LTD
REGD. OFFICE UNITY BUILDING 2 ND FLOOR J.C. ROAD BANGALOR 560 002 HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT. NAGPUR LOKAMAT BHAVAN COMPLEX BLOCK NO. 604 - A WARDHA ROAD NAGPUR
NAGPUR
M.S.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SMT. MIRA CHAKRABORTY
R/O PLOT NO. 67 ANANT NAGAR BEHIND POLICE LINE TAKLI NAGPUR
NAGPUR
M.S.
2. SMT. KRISHNA KINKER CHOKRIBORTY
R/O PLOT NO. 67 ANANT NAGAR BEHIND POLICE LINE TAKLI NAGPUR
NAGPUR
M.S.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
None
 
For the Respondent:
None
 
Dated : 04 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

 

None is present for the appellant. Perusal of the record & proceedings of the appeal shows that in pursuance of the notice dtd.03.09.2015 issued by this Commission to the appellant by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due, the representative of the appellant namely Somdatta Wasnik had appeared on 02.11.2015 before this Commission.  The appeal was adjourned till 21.01.2016 for taking appropriate steps by the said representative of the appellant. Thereafter, on 21.01.2016, the said representative of the appellant had appeared and filed objection statement.  Thereafter the appeal came to be adjourned several times i.e. on 14.03.2016, 03.05.2016, 20.07.2016, 19.09.2016, 17.11.2016 and 21.12.2016. None appeared for the appellant on all those dates.  The appellant has not complied with the direction given by this Commission on 03.05.2016 to serve the notice of this Commission to respondent Nos.1 & 2 by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due.  This Commission, therefore, observed on 17.11.2016 in its order that as the appellant has not complied with the said direction, nor appeared on several dates as above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Last chance was granted to the appellant for compliance till 21.12.2016.  However, till 21.12.2016 also the aforesaid compliance was not made by the appellant and therefore the appeal came to be adjourned again observing in the order dtd.21.12.2016 that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.  The appeal came to be adjourned till this date for appropriate order. 

 

We find that as the appellant has not taken steps for service of notice to the respondents, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default.

 

Hence, the appeal is dismissed in default.

No order as to costs.

Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal]
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.