R.L.CHOPRAPetition , For the : Mr. <ADV>Mukesh Kr. Verma</ADV>, Advocate. vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

PRESIDENTTHE present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 4.4.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 141/2003 -entitled Shri R.L. Chopra v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner, Shri R.L. Chopra, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/MTNL. That complaint, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in default for the first time on 13.9.2001. However, vide subsequent order, the complaint dismissed in default vide order dated 13.9.2001, was ordered to be restored to its original number subject to payment of costs. THE petitioner/complainant again defaulted and in default on the part of the petitioner/complainant, that complaint was again dismissed for the second time on 16.1.2003. THEreafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 18.2.2003, for the restoration of the complaint, dismissed in default vide order dated 16.1.2003. That application dated 18.2.2003, filed on behalf of the petitioner, for the restoration of the complaint, dismissed in default vide order dated 16.1.2003, came up for hearing before the learned District Forum on 4.4.2003. On 4.4.2003, the Counsel for the complainant was not present and one Mr. Sunil Kumar Shukla, Proxy Counsel was present who was not at all aware of the facts of the case. THE learned District Forum while holding that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter had dismissed that application, filed on behalf of the petitioner for the restoration of the complaint. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length on the question of admission of the present petition and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the complaint, filed by the petitioner, under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed in default for the first time on 13.9.2001. However, in the interest of justice the same was directed to be restored to its original number though subject to payment of costs. The petitioner again defaulted and in default that complaint was again dismissed on 16.1.2003. The petitioner filed an application dated 18.2.2003 (after a lapse of more than one month) for the restoration of that complaint. That application came up for hearing before the learned District Forum on 4.4.2003. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed that application. The operative portion of that order, being impugned in the present proceedings, reads as under : Today also, the learned Counsel for the complainant not come to pursue the application and the learned Proxy Counsel is not aware of the facts of the case at all. That shows that the complainant is not interested in prosecution of the complaint. Under these circumstances, finding no good ground for order for restoration of the complaint, the petition for the same is dismissed. File be consigned.

DURING the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he could not appear on 16.1.2003 due to illness of his son and the complainant also could not appear as the complainant, due to the death of his real brothers wife had to go to Bombay. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Counsel for the complainant was not present on 4.4.2003 and the Proxy Counsel who had appeared for the Counsel for the complainant was not even aware of the facts of the case. With a view to satisfy ourselves we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why there was no effective appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 4.4.2003 before the District Forum. To our above query no satisfactory reply could be given except that the Counsel for the petitioner stated that he was busy in other urgent matters before the Honble High Court. In our opinion, the reasons advanced for non-appearance on 4.4.2003 is far from convincing in the given facts, more particularly the fact that once the complaint had already been dismissed in default on 13.9.2001. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and his Counsel, in the given facts, were expected to be extra cautions which precaution unfortunately has not been taken by anyone of them. In view of the above discussion, the present petition filed by the petitioner, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.