SUNITA BAIRAGI Vs. MANAGER ALANKIT IMAGINATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The matter pertains to the dismissal of the appeal vide Order dtd. 2/12/2024, due to non-appearance of the appellant by the learned State Commission. It is seen from the record that the matter was listed for hearing before the State Commission on 23/9/2024. On which date, none appeared for the appellant / complainant. Subsequently, the matter was listed for 22/10/2024. Again, on that date also none appeared for the appellant / complainant. In the interest of justice, the learned State Commission has listed the matter on 2/12/2024. But, on that date also, none appeared for the appellant. The learned State Commission, therefor, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant states that the appellant is a poor woman and belongs to a remote area of Chhattisgarh. Unfortunately, she was not able to follow up the matter before the State Commission and there were certain lapses on the part of the counsel who was engaged to pursue the appeal before the State Commission. The complainant was not apprised by him regarding the appeal and therefore she was not aware of his absence on three occasions before the State Commission. He regrets the same and states that, he has a good case on merits and the dismissal of the matter in non-prosecution would significantly cause financial burden on the appellant / complainant.

(3.) After considering the submissions made and perusing the records including the impugned Order dtd. 2/12/2024 passed by the learned State Commission, we consider it appropriate to remand the case back to the learned State Commission, subject to the appellant / complainant depositing Rs.20,000.00 in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within a period of four weeks. Subject thereto, the Order dtd. 2/2/2024 passed by the State Commission is set aside and Complaint Case No. 24 of 2011 is restored to its original number.