BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.20 OF 2023 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO. 65/2021, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION- ADILABAD Between:

Ranavena Suresh, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.Singareddy Pally, Post: Upparlakesaram, Mandal: Ramagiri, H.No.2-47, Peddapelli, District, Telangana State.

.…Appellant/Complainant And

1. More Retail Ltd., Mancherial, Gr.floor, D.No.13-202 to 13-212, Srinivasa Complex, Caltex, Petrol Pump, Adilabad District, T.S.

2. More Retail Ltd., (Head Office), Skyline Icon-86/92, 5th & 6th floor, Near Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri, Kurla Road, Mumbai, M.H. 400059.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s.V.Shiva Shankar Babu Counsel for the Respondents/Opp. Parties: M/s. Sridhar Boyapalli QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO,…MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY, THE ELEVEN TH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order :

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act,2019, praying this Commission allow the appeal and allow the complaint in CC.No.65 of 2021 dated 07.09.2022 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Adilabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The brie facts of the case are that the complaint was registered and Sri M.Ravindra Reddy, Advocate filed vakalat for Opposite Parties. Subsequently, on 23.07.2021, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their counter along with documents and the matter was posted to 23.08.2021 for filing proof affidavit of Complainant. But the Complainant remained absent on several dates and on 11.11.2021, the Complainant filed proof affidavit and the matter was posted to 02.12.2021 for marking documents of Complainant. Again from 02.12.2021, the matter was posted to 20.12.2021 for filing proof affidavit of Opposite Parties and marking documents of Complainant. On several dates of adjournments the Complainant continuously failed to appear despite posting the matter under the dismissal caption. On 23.08.2022, the Complainant counsel called absent even though the matter was kept under Passover. In view of the expiry of the stipulated time, the matter was reserved for orders.

4. The Opposite Parties were ready to prosecute the case and also raised the objections in the complaint and denied the averments by the Complainant. Even though the Complainant was given ample time, but neither the Complainant nor his counsel appeared before the District Commission.

5. In view of the circumstances stated above, the complaint was dismissed for default/non-prosecution with no costs on either sides.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant filed this appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:

 The District Commission failed to appreciate the question of facts in its true perspective that there is deficiency in rendering service to the Appellant under the ambit of definition of consumer dispute.

 The District Commission ought to have allowed the prayer of the Complainant both on question of law and facts of the case.

 The District Commission failed to consider the plight of the Complainant and passed the order in a very casual manner.

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?

\

8. Heard and perused the material on record.

9. Heard. The appeal is filed by the Complainant contending that the District Commission did not dispose of the complaint filed by him on merits on examination of the relevant documents and dismissed for non-prosecution. We have seen and examined the order passed by the District Commission, Adilabad in CC.No.65/2021 and the same depicts that the said order is not on me