NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1243/2009

DR. (MRS.) GAYATHREE, M.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. AYYANATHAN & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NITESH KUMAR SINGH

27 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09 Apr 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1243/2009
(Against the Order dated 12/11/2008 in Appeal No. 316/2005 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu)
1. DR. (MRS.) GAYATHREE, M.S.Gayathree Medical Center . 130, Madurai Road, Theni -626531 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. V. AYYANATHAN & ORS.S/o. A.Velchamy , 31. Madam Street . Bodinayakanur -625513 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. M. N. Singh, adv. for MR. NITESH KUMAR SINGH, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 Jul 2009
ORDER

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.

          The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner for non-prosecution as it had failed to appear on four different occasions inspite of having knowledge of the adjourned date of hearing.

          This revision petition had come up for hearing on 01.5.2009 on which date the same was adjourned to today to enable counsel for the petitioner to place relevant documents including the order dated

-2-

04.1.2008 passed in Appeal No.316/2005 as also the application CMP No.967/2008.  Petitioner was also directed to deposit sum of Rs.1 Lac with the District Forum.

          Counsel for the petitioner has neither filed the documents nor deposited the sum of Rs.1Lac.  The revision petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution.

            This apart, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  The fault lays with the petitioner in not appearing before the State Commission on four adjourned dates of hearing inspite of having knowledge of the those dates.  Revision petition is dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER