Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.Vijay Bhambure, A.R./father of the appellant. Perused the record. 2. In the instant case, the consumer complaint stood dismissed for continuous non-absence of the complainant under reference to Section 13(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for brevity). Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred. 3. It is orally submitted on behalf of the appellant that the facts recorded about their continuous absence are not correct. When we asked Learned A.R. of the appellant to substantiate his submission, he failed to do so. Under the circumstance, his such submission cannot be accepted. The impugned order cannot be faulted with. In our view, the above referred provision of Section 13(2)(c) of the Act is to be read along with rule 4(7) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000. 4. Furthermore, it could be seen from the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that ‘Reliance Hello’ is a non-est company. Therefore, consumer complaint filed against the ‘Area Manager’ of a non-est Company is, per se, untenable. 5. For the reasons stated above, we find no fault with the impugned order passed by the District Forum. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 24th August 2012. | 
