| Complaint Case No. CC/18/114 | | ( Date of Filing : 28 Aug 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. Mr. Parth Pankaj Vira | | 1001, Gayatridham Tower, Derasar Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400077 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP | | Through its Partner Divya a Jain , 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 2. Mrs Divya Ashok Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 3. Mrs Geeta Bherulal Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 4. Mrs Heena Hirachand Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 5. Mr. Sachin Bherulalji Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 6. Mr. Bherulalji Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 7. Mr. Nitesh Bherulalji Jain | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra | | 8. Dr. Rubina Shaikh | | Partner of M/s Renewcell Cosmetic LLP 103 Jogani Estate, opp Bellissimo, N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400013 | | Mumbai | | Maharashtra |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Order below application filed by opposite party No.1 to 7 dated 29/09/2022 to dismiss the complaint in cc/18/114 Per M.P.Kasar Member - Opposite party has stated that, as per the roznama dt.04.02.2022 the complainant had sought for steps to be taken against opposite party No.8. It is stated the complainant has wrongfully dragged opposite parties 1 -7. It is stated that, complainant had last appeared before commission on 17/01/2020 and have made themselves absent till date. It is stated that such inaction on part of the complainant justifies his vexatious intent towards the op 1-7. So to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant and any other order may deem to see fit and proper.
- Complainant failed to file his say on application so application proceeded without say of complainant
- Heard opposite party No.1 to 7 through Adv.Tanvi Purecha perused sections of consumer protection Act 1986 to decide application on merit we frame issues as follows :-
Sr.No | Issues | Findings | -
| Can present complaint case be dismissed as per section 13(2)(c) ? | Yes. | -
| What order | Application allowed |
Findings. As to issue No.1 &2 :- From the perusal of roznam orders it has been noted that, complaint case has been admitted against opposite parties vide dated 04.09.2018 by our predecessor forum . from the perusal of roznamas it is appearing that complainant did not appear before commission since from 14/02/2019. It appeared that only on 26/11/2019 advocate of complainant was present and again complainant and his advocate remained consistently absent before this forum and failed to take appropriate step to proceed complainant case. Section 13(2)( c ) says that; where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearingbefore the district forum ,the district forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide on merit . From the perusals of aforesaid sections it is appearing that said provision gives powers to commission to dismiss complaint in default of complainant case. From the perusals of record of complaint case it has appeared that, complainant have remained absent from long time and also failed to take step against opposite party No.8 without showing any cogent reasons by appearing before forum or by way of any correspondence. So application deserves to be allowed in view of aforesaid provision and considering the principal of natural justice and rights of opposite parties. Due to defaults of complainant complaint case cannot be preceded. So we answer issue No.1 as yes and pass order as follows:- ORDER - Application filed by the opposite party dated 29/09/2022 to dismiss complaint case in default of complainant is hereby allowed as per section 13 (2 ) ( c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- In view of above order No.1 CC/18/114 is dismissed against opposite parties No.1 to 8 and disposed of accordingly.
| |
