JAGESHWAR PANDEY Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We see no merit in this appeal. The appellant before us is the unsuccessful complainant in Case No. 34 of 1991 on the file of the State Commission, U.P.

(2.) The complaint petition was dismissed by the State Commission on May 10,1991 on the ground of default of appearance on the part of the complainant. It is expressly mentioned in the order passed by the State Commission that intimation had been given to the complainant about the date fixed for the hearing of his case and he had been duly called upon to appear before the State Commission on the said date. Though, there is a vague averment contained in the Memorandum of Appeal that the appellant had no information about the posting of the case, no supporting affidavit has been filed by the appellant In the absence of any clinching material produced before us to show that the statement contained in the order of the State Commission is incorrect, we have to proceed on basis that the appellant had failed to appear and prosecute the case in spite of his having been informed about the date on which the case stood posted for hearing before the State Commission. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the State Commission acted illegally or erroneously in dismissing the complaint petition for default of appearance.

(3.) The order of the State Commission is accordingly upheld and this appeal is dismissed. There will be no direction regarding costs. Appeal dismissed.