Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President

          Today when the complaint is called out Complainant as well as advocate for the Complainant is absent.  Adv. Smt. Urmila is present on behalf of the Opponents.

[2]     This is a complaint filed on 15/2/2008.  As per order dated 20/2/2009, passed by the then President and the Member, this complaint was adjourned sine-die.  Thereafter, upon issuing notices to both the parties, the complaint was taken on Board.  Accordingly, the complaint appeared on the Board on 24/1/2012.  On that date Adv. R. S. Singh was present on behalf of the Complainant and Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil was present on behalf of the Opponents.  Since the written version filed by the Opponents was on the record, the Bench directed the parties to file their respective affidavits of evidence as per Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint was adjourned to 3/4/2012.  On 3/4/2012 the Complainant was present in person.  Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil was present on behalf of the Opponents.  Complainant sought grant of an adjournment on the ground that he wanted to change his lawyer.  In the interest of justice an adjournment was granted and by way of a last chance the complaint was adjourned to 14/6/2012.  On 14/6/2012 the Complainant was absent while Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil was present on behalf of the Opponents.  Since the Complainant did not file his affidavit of evidence, evidence on the part of the Complainant was treated as closed.  Adv. Smt. Sanil for the Opponents filed pursis closing evidence on behalf of the Opponents.  The complaint was adjourned to 26/6/2012 and the parties were directed to file their briefs of written arguments as per Regulation No.13(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 

[3]     On 26/6/2012 the Complainant was absent.  Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil was present on behalf of the Opponents.  She tendered an affidavit of surveyor.  It was taken on the record.  She was also directed to file a pursis closing evidence on behalf of the Opponents and she was further directed to arrange the file properly by carrying out continuous date-wise pagination and to file her briefs of written arguments as per Regulation No.13(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 and the complaint was adjourned to 17/9/2012.  On 17/9/2012 the Complainant was absent.  Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil was present on behalf of the Opponents.  However, as she was not feeling well she was unable to argue the complaint and hence the complaint was adjourned to 26/11/2012.  On 26/11/2012, the matter could not reach and since the Commission’s time was over, the Board was discharged and the complaint was adjourned to 7/2/2013.  Today, as observed earlier, no one is present on behalf of the Complainant.  What is important to be noted is that the Complainant stated at the Bar that he wanted to engage another advocate.  However, above-referred order-sheets reveal that even though a period of more than one year has gone by, still the Complainant has not engaged any other advocate and not only that he himself is not remaining present before the State Commission.  The Complainant has not even cared to file his affidavit in evidence as per Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in compliance with the orders dated 24/1/2012 passed by this Commission.  Not only that but thereafter he failed to file briefs of written arguments as per Regulation No.13(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  His continuous absence shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the complaint and, therefore, he preferred to remain absent.  Orders passed by this Commission on each date are displayed on the internet and, therefore, all these dates are deemed to have been known to the parties.  The Complainant is negligent in prosecution of the complaint and as such, the complaint is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution.  Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed for non-prosecution.  Order accordingly.

Dated – 07^th February, 2013