The case record is posted today for ex parte hearing of the case. None present on behalf of the complainant nor has taken any step. The Ops have filed a memo with a prayer to drop the case. In the present case the Ops did not appear nor filed their written version and have been set ex parte since 10.5.2016. Therefore, the memo filed on behalf of the Ops is not taken into consideration and thus, stands rejected. On repeated calls, also the complainants did not turn up. 

                                         As it appears from the case record, the complaint was filed by a registered volunteer consumer organization, represented by its Asst. Secretary Prasanta Kumar Panda along with one Mayadhar Majhi against the Ops. First of all, not a single document is produced to show that Prasanta Kumar Panda is the Asst. Secretary of that volunteer consumer organization although it is a registered one. That apart, it is stated in the complaint petition that complainant No.2 is the consumer under Ops. The documents produced in this case clearly show that Mayadhar Majhi is the consumer under the Ops. In this connection, it is ambiguous how Prasanta Kumar Panda, the so called Asst. Secretary of the organization is related with Mayadhar Majhi, who is a domestic category of consumer under the Ops. Further, it is seen that one Santosh Kumar Majhi has made affidavit to the effect that he is the son of Mayadhar Majhi and has taken oath that the facts narrated in the complaint petition is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and said Santosh Kumar Majhi has put his signature as verificant. Interestingly, said affidavit has been made before one Narendra Kumar Das, the Notary Public, Bhadrak. In the lower portion of the said affidavit one authorization was made by Sri Prasanta Kumar Panda, the so called Asst. Secretary of the aforesaid consumer organization authorizing one Nilambar Mishra, who is the advisor of the said organization for prosecution of the case with a view to protect the interest of the consumer, which is not admissible in the eye of law.

                                         Besides the above, it is seen from the case record that neither the complainants nor said Nilambar Mishra remain present on the dates of ex parte hearing i.e. from 12.7.2016 to 27.3.2017 and thereafter from 26.3.2018 till today and slept over the matter years together.

                                         As discussed above in the foregoing paragraphs, and considering the nature and conduct of the complainants, it is clearly made out that the complainants have no interest to prosecute their case and unnecessarily waste the valuable times of this Commission. On the other hand, the Ops, although were set ex parte, have vehemently urged that either the complainants or their representative are not prosecuting the case since long. Taking into consideration the above factors, this Commission is of the view that the complaint of the complainants should be dismissed.                           

                                         Accordingly, the complaint of the complainants is dismissed for non-prosecution of the case. The interim order, if any, passed earlier against the Ops shall remain infructuous.