Taken up through video conferencing. Heard the learned counsel present. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.01.2018 of the State Commission passed in Complaint No. 341 of 2009. 2. The appeal was filed with the Registry of this Commission on 28.03.2018 with delay. It was entertained on 12.04.2018, when this Commission ordered notice to be issued subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent no. 1 – complainant, to defray travel and miscellaneous expenses and stayed the operation of the impugned Order subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount along with up-to-date interest with the State Commission within four weeks. 3. Since 12.04.2018, service of notice has not been effected on the respondent no. 2 (i.e. for a period of 1208 days). 4. The ideal normative period for finally disposing an appeal is 90 days from the date of its admission (Section 19A of the Act 1986). However, the daily Orders of 12.04.2018, 01.06.2018, 04.10.2018, 24.01.2019, 19.08.2019, 14.10.2019 and 06.03.2020, which are reproduced below for ready reference, show the way and manner the appeal is being procrastinated by the appellants and has not been enabled to arrive at its legal culmination: 12.4.2018 ORDER Heard. Issue notice of the Appeal as well as of the application for condonation of delay to the Respondents returnable on 4.10.2018, subject to appellants remitting a sum of Rs.2,000/- to Respondent No. 1 as to and fro and other allied expenses by way of demand draft within a period of four weeks. Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 4.1.2018 of the State Commission shall remain stayed subject to Appellants depositing 50% of the awarded amount alongwith up-to-date interest, if any, with the State Commission within a period of four weeks. The State Commission shall keep the deposited amount in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized bank initially for a period of one year subject to renewal from time to time. 1.6.2018 ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants. She states that there was a delay of one week in depositing the FDR with the State Commission in compliance of the order date 12.4.2018 of this Commission. As there was some delay in preparing the FDR, the State Commission has not accepted the deposit. IA No. 10282 of 2018 has been filed for extension of time. In the circumstances mentioned in the application, further time of one week from today is allowed to the Appellants(s) for compliance of the order dated 12.4.2018 of this Commission. List the matter on the date already fixed i.e. 4.10.2018. Order be given Dasti. Dated : 04th October, 2018 ORDER Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is present and states that she has not received the copy of paper-book. Learned counsel for the appellant states that she will be supplying the copy of the paper-book to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. In case Registry has extra copy of the paper-book, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 may collected the same from the Registry. Notice sent to respondent no. 2 has received back with postal remarks “left”. Learned counsel for the appellant states that she will be filing fresh address of respondent no. 2. May be filed within a period of four weeks. Registry is directed to again issue notice to respondent no. 2 on the fresh address so filed and if no fresh is filed, Registry is directed to issue notice on the existing address of respondent no. 2, returnable on 24.01.2019. Dated : 24.1.2019 ORDER Counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.2 has not been served. She further submits that she needs a short time in order to be able to serve notice upon him as it has become known that he is also being proceeded against in a criminal case and, therefore, service upon him would be possible. Counsel for respondent No.1 also submits that he would attempt to serve notice upon respondent No.2. Registry to issue a fresh notice at the known address and hand over copies to both counsel for the appellants, as well as counsel for respondent No.1 for dasti service. Proof of dasti service be filed within four weeks. Counsel for respondent No.1 seeks permission to file certain documents which have been filed before the lower Fora but have not been filed in the compilation of documents submitted alongwith this revision petition. Permission granted. This may be filed alongwith an application and a copy may be given to the counsel for the appellants. Counsel for the appellants further seeks permission to hand over a demand draft of Rs.2,000/- which had been ordered vide our order dated 12.4.2018. The draft is accepted at the bar. List on 19.8.2019. Dated : 19th August, 2019 ORDER Registry has reported that notice sent to Respondent no. 2 has come back unserved. Learned counsel for the appellant states that they tried to serve Dasti to respondent no.2 during the course of his appearance in the criminal case, however, he is not coming there also. Learned counsel for the appellants states that she will be filing an application for substituted service through publication. May be filed within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states she will be filing the documents as ordered by this Commission on 24th January 2019, during the course of the day. May be filed. Copy has already been given to the learned counsel for the appellant. List the matter on 14th October 2019. Dated : 14th October, 2019 ORDER Learned counsel for the appellant states that she has not received the instructions from the client whether respondent no. 2 needs to be dropped or needs to be substituted. Learned counsel for the appellant requests time to seek instructions and do the needful in this regard. Accordingly, list the matter on 06.03.2020. Dated: 6th March, 2020 ORDER Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants wish to effect substituted service through publication on the respondent no. 2. The appellants shall take the necessary steps within eight weeks for substituted service on the respondent no. 2 by way of publication in two leading daily newspapers, one in English and the other in the regional language, as per the due procedure, through the Registry. List on 01.10.2020 for further proceedings. 5. It appears from the perusal of proceedings that after having succeeded to obtain the initial stay order at the time of admission, the appellants got relaxed and, instead of pursing the matter in right earnest, a non-serious attitude was allowed to creep in and punctuate their approach all throughout. Deposit of 50% of the awarded amount with up-to-date interest with the State Commission, as the condition attached with the grant of stay on the operation of the impugned Order, was to be made within four weeks of 12.04.2018. However, the Order was not complied with in time, instead, the extension of time for making the said deposit was sought on 01.06.2018, by filing an interlocutory application. Payment of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent no. 1 – complainant, to defray travel and miscellaneous expenses, was to be made within four weeks of 12.04.2018. However, the same was made much later in the course of proceedings before this Commission on 24.01.2019. Throughout, from 12.04.2018 onwards, repeated and sufficient opportunity, and more, was provided to the appellant to effect service on the respondent no. 2 but to no avail. On 06.03.2020, after taking instructions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants wish to effect substituted service through publication on the respondent no. 2. The appellants were allowed to do so and were directed by this Commission to effect substituted service as per the due procedure within eight weeks. Yet till date i.e. after almost one year 5 months from 06.03.2020, substituted service has not been effected. 6. Today too, on being questioned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has not been able to show any progress or to apprise us as to what steps have been taken to effect the substituted service at all. In fact, the only request made by the appellant’s counsel is to give further adjournment and provide further opportunity to take steps to effect substituted service. 7. We are finding it hard to accede to such request and give further adjournment. Keeping in perspective the protracted period that has been allowed to lapse without taking any steps in between it is not difficult to infer that due diligence has not been shown in this matter. In fact this appeal after having been filed in 2018 is simply lying in its preliminary stages, awaiting for its progress and logical culmination but is not being allowed to have any because of a non-serious attitude on behalf of the appellant. We do not feel satisfied at all and see no good reason why we should keep the proceedings pending before us at a nascent stage for so long or allow them to be held at ransom by the lackadaisical attitude of a party. After all, the proceedings cannot be held up for an indefinite period of time. Not taking any steps at all towards effecting the substituted service as directed, is tantamount to non-prosecution. Resultantly, it appears to be a fit case in which we should dismiss this appeal in the wake of its non-prosecution. 8. The appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution as such. 9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel within three days. Copy be also sent to the State Commission. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
