IMPORTANT POINT
Frivolous and vexatious petitions must be avoided.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Present none. Case is called thrice. Our Court Master informed us that the counsel for the petitioners came during the lunch time. Consequently, we are waiting for him. This is exactly 4:00 P.M. but none has appeared.

2. This order will decide the above two cases. These two cases were fixed for arguments for admission. These cases have been filed second time. Our previous order in the first revision petitions bearing numbers 2736/2015 & 2737/2015 dated 02-12-2015 is reproduced as here under:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw both these revision petitions.

Permission granted.

Both the revision petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.”

3. It is not understood how these cases have been filed and under what authority. No permission was granted for filing the cases again. The cases were dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. D. Sontakke. These revision petitions are filed by one Shri N.B. Bhagat, Advocate, who is not present.

4. In case Kalpana Roy Vs. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors., RP No.3362 of 2014 pending before this Bench, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, review petition was filed and vide order dated 13-11-2014 the review petition was dismissed. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5783 of 2015 was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the same vide order dated 23-02-2015.

5. Again this Commission, consisting of three members in case Neeru Chawla Vs. Indu Chopra, FA No.387 of 2013, dismissed the appeal. The National Commission passed the following order:

“State Commission has passed the order based on the concession made by the counsel, Mr. Puneet Singh. Counsel appearing for the appellant today in court very fairly admits that Puneet Singh was engaged by the appellant. Since Puneet Singh was engaged as counsel for the appellant, he had a right to make a statement and we have no doubt that he had made such concession after taking instructions. Since order has been passed by the State Commission on concession made by the counsel for the appellant, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.”

The Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12962 of 2014 arising out of the above order was dismissed by the Apex Court.

6. Similar view was taken in DCM Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Saini & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4081 of 2013, decided on 01-02-2013 wherein the case was dismissed as withdrawn and the recall petition was held not maintainable.

7. Similar view was taken in Satyanarayan Shrikrishan Kalantri Vs. Asstt. Eng. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.37328-29 of 2013, decided on 22-11-2013.

8. Both these cases have been filed in order to waste the precious time of this Commission. Both the revision petitions are frivolous and vexatious, therefore, we impose costs of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said amount be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid A/c-NCDRC within 30 days of the receipt of this order, otherwise, the law will take its own course and Registry will recover the amount in accordance with law.

9. The revision petitions are dismissed.

Revision Petitions dismissed.