Delhi

North East

RA/5/2024

ASHISH SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RA/Complaint CaseNo.05/24

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ashish Singhal R/o H.No. 121 St. No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
	Versus
1.                   2.	Vijay Sales Through its Director/Partner At:- Preet Vihar Metro Station A 18, Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-110092   Bosch Company Through its Director/ Partner At:-Ist Floor, Tapasya Corp Height Tower B, Sector 126, Noida, UP   Also at:- Ist Floor, Unit No. 116, DLF Prime Towers, Okhla Phase 1, New Delhi-110020	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

1. This order shall disposed off an application dated 07.06.24 filed by the Counsel for the Complainant for restoration of the complaint case which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.03.24.
2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the file.
3. The case of the Counsel for the Complainant is that on 21.03.24 he could not appear as his father was suffering from sugar and TB and the treatment of his father was going on in Kailash Deepak Hospital Karkardooma Delhi.
4. The present application talks about only one date of hearing i.e. 21.03.24 that the Counsel could not appear as his father was suffering from TB and Sugar. The perusal of the file shows that in this case only on the one date i.e. 30.11.23 one proxy counsel Md. Kashif Khan had appeared and thereafter on five consecutive dates no one has appeared on behalf of the Complainant. There is no explanation regarding such a long absence.
5. The case of the applicant is that father of the Complainant was not well. It is nowhere stated in the application that on 21.03.24 the Counsel for the Complainant had taken his father to hospital for treatment. It is also important to mention here that apart from applicant Sh. Rinku Tomar Advocate there are two other Advocates namely Sh. Deepak Pandey and Sh. Nitin Garg. This is revealed from the Vakalatnama filed along with the complaint. There is no explanation as to why no other advocate appeared on the said dates. There is no explanationas to why the Complainant could not appear on five consecutive dates.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the application and the same is dismissed.

 

 

7. Order announced on 28.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)