MANJUNATH SHETTY Vs. VIMAL BUILDERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under sec. 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dtd. 28/11/2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 102 of 2016.

(2.) Vide its Order of 28/11/2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution in the absence of the complainants. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The complainants are husband and wife. They could not be present before the State Commission for about 06 weeks because of the medical condition of the complainant no. 1 i.e. the husband, due to which they had to stay in his native place in Karnataka. The complainant no. 1 was admitted in a hospital on 19/11/2019 for 02 days and was advised for follow-up and treatment for 06 weeks. The relevant hospital record has been attached with the appeal. In all this the complainants could not attend to the case before the State Commission at Mumbai in Maharashtra. The State Commission passed its impugned Order on 28/11/2019, just within a few days of his hospitalization. The complainants have a good case on merit and want opportunity to present their case before the State Commission. They will dutifully conduct their complaint before the State Commission. Submission is that the complainants will prejudicially suffer irreparably if the complaint is not restored and it may eventually lead to complete miscarriage of justice leaving the complainants remediless and helpless.