Haryana

StateCommission

A/884/2017

TARSEM GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICEJET LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.884 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 25.07.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 11.07.2019

 

 

Tarsem Garg, resident of House No.1641P, Sector 4, Panchkula.

 

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      The Managing Director, Spicejet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

 

2.      Senior Manager (Legal Department), Spicejet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

 

….. Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    None for the appellant

                   Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the respondents.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)  

 

          The instant appeal was filed by the appellant in person.  When it came up for preliminary hearing, the appellant was present in person.  Besides, Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate also put in appearance on behalf of the appellant.  After hearing the appellant and his counsel, the State Commission issued notice and requisitioned the record.  On the adjourned date, Shri R.P. Singh appeared on behalf of the appellant and filed the Power of Attorney.  However, as the opposite parties were not served, the appeal was adjourned for 14.03.2018 and fresh notices were issued. On 14.03.2018 while Shri R.P. Singh appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and the appeal was adjourned for arguments.  On the adjourned date, the parties were duly represented by their counsel.  However, learned counsel for the respondents requested for an adjournment, which was granted.  On the adjourned date, request was made by learned counsel for the appellant for adjournment, which was also granted and the hearing of the appeal adjourned to 30.10.2018.  On 30.10.2018 as well as on two subsequent dates i.e. 06.02.2019 and 27.05.2019, none appeared for the appellant though the respondents stood duly represented.  For the reason that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant on three consecutive dates, the appeal was adjourned for today for arguments but it was made clear that in case there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on the adjourned date i.e. today, the State Commission might be constrained to dismiss the appeal in default for want of prosecution. 

2.      The appeal has been called twice but none has put in appearance for the appellant nor there is any written or oral request for adjournment on his behalf.  In view of the same, the State Commission is left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal in default for want of prosecution. 

3.      Ordered accordingly.

 

Announced 11.07.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K