After the matter was passed over, Mr. Akarshan Sahay, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocates who had early appeared for the Petitioner. He states that he has been informed that Mr. Akhil Sachar is busy in the High Court and Mr. Vivek Sharma is indisposed and is not attending to any court work today. As per office report, the Petitioner has not collected the dasti notice for being served on Respondent no.2 Since two Counsel have already put in appearance on behalf of the Petitioner, we do not find any justification for grant of adjournment on -1- -3- the ground that none of them is available for appearance before this Commission. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to decline request for adjournment and dismiss the Revision Petition for non-prosecution. Ordered accordingly. ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... VINEETA RAI MEMBER ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER
Renu Sharma v. M/s. Fx Hyundai Motor India Limited & Anr
Renu Sharma v. M/s. Fx Hyundai Motor India Limited & Anr
(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
Revision Petition No. 4482/2013 | 13-08-2014
Advocate List
Bench
- MR. D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
- MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
- MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
Eq Citations
- LQ/NCDRC/2014/3300
Head Note
CONSUMER PROTECTION — CONSUMER FORUM — Non-prosecution — Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution — Petitioner not collecting dasti notice for service on respondent — Counsel appearing for petitioner not available — Held, since two Counsel had already put in appearance on behalf of petitioner, no justification for grant of adjournment on ground that none of them was available for appearance before Commission — Request for adjournment declined and Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 21 — Practice and Procedure — Adjournment
