Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/295

MRS SWEETY Y NADWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE INFORMATION SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

SUJEET KURUP

20 Aug 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/295
(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/02/2010 in Case No. 89/2009 of District Thane)
1. MRS SWEETY Y NADWANIRESIDING AT 1002 ROYAL CASTLE APARTMENT, NEAR AGRASHEN BHAVAN, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT SURATGUJRAT ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE INFORMATION SERVICE H BLOCK FIRST FLOOR DHIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY, NAVI MUMBAI 400 701MUMBAIMaharastra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENTHon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial MemberHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :

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.

ORDER

 

 

Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

In this appeal at page 48 onwards the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in case no. 241/2007 decided on 26/03/2009 is annexed.  The said judgment is delivered by said District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Gujrathi language.  It is the language relied upon by the appellant.  At page 67 onwards up to page 88 the alleged English translation of the said judgment is annexed.  We are not aware of the Gujrathi language and therefore, it is a duty of the appellant to give the correct translation of the Gujrathi language so as to understand what has been decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat.  When we realized that said English translation is not authenticated, by order dated 23/03/2010, we directed the appellant to file affidavit of the person who has translated Gujrathi documents into English to the effect that he knows Gujraathi and English and he is a authorized translator and that the translation is true and correct and adjourned the matter on 06/04/2010.  On 06/04/2010, Ld.Counsel for the appellant asked for time to comply with the said direction and it was accordingly granted and appeal was adjourned to 17/06/2010.  On 17/06/2010 also one Mr.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant was present.  However, we found that directions were not complied with and therefore, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund account of this Commission, time was granted and appeal was adjourned to 20/08/2010. 

          Today when the matter is called, no one is present for appellant.  Advocates who have filed vakalatnama are absent.  It is also found that amount of cost of Rs.500/- also has not been deposited.  Thus, not only there is non-compliance of the order dated 23/03/2010, but there is equally non-compliance of order dated 17/06/2010.  Under these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                      :-ORDER-:

 

1.                 Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

2.                 Dictated on dais.

3.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 20 August 2010

[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]PRESIDENT[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]Judicial Member[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member