CC No.5 of 2022.
Ramesh Vs. Chaudhary Beej.
Present: None for the complainant.
None for the respondent No.1 (as till date notice of complaint has not been ordered against the respondent No.1).
Sh. Shubham Kamboj, Adv. for the respondent No.2.
On receipt of the complaint, notice of the complaint was also given to the respondent No.1, but it was received unserved due to insufficient address as per Track Consignment Report Ex.M1. Thereafter, the complainant has been given ample opportunity and sufficient time to disclose the correct address of the respondent No.1, but the complainant has failed to disclose the correct address of the respondent No.1, rather he failed to appear before the Commission on 30.01.2023, 15.02.2023 as well as on today.
This is complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and cannot be dismissed on account of default in appearance, rather it is required to be decided on merits as envisaged under Section 38 (3) (C) of the Act. However, situation is different in the present case. Once the notice of the complaint is not being served upon the respondent No.1, due to the fault on the part of the complainant, then, complaint cannot be decided on merit against the respondent No.1, because, no one can be condemned unheard. The respondent No.1 is necessary party and in the absence of the respondent No.1, the proceedings against the respondent No.2 will not serve any purpose, rather it will be the exercise in futility wasting the time of the Commission. Under the circumstances, the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to file afresh complaint against the respondents disclosing the particulars of the present complaint and its fate and fresh complaint shall be subject to period of limitation. File be consigned to the records.
President,
DCDRC, YNR,
L. Member Member 28.02.2023.
Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno-typist.
