STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 10.01.2025 Date of decision : 14.01.2025 Vinay Gladwin, aged 26 years, S/o Mukhtar Singh R/o House No.344, Shanti Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur, through his father and natural guardian Sh. Mukhtar Singh Masih S/o Sh. Lal Masih R/o H.No.344, Shanti Nagar, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Bright Overseas Immigration Consultants, SCO 59, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Proprietor.

2. Bhavneet Singh S/o Jarnail Singh C/o Bright Overseas Immigration Consultants, SCO 59, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, R/o House No.74, Phase-6, Sector-56, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

3. Inder Gill S/o Harpal Singh Gill C/o Bright Overseas Immigration Consultants, SCO 59, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, R/o House No.505, Silver Enclave, Near Village Fatehullhapur, Sector 125, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….Respondents/OPs First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the orders dated 22.03.2021 and 25.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali).

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Appellant : Sh. Raj K. Selwan Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellant/Complainant Vijay Gladwin has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by him had been dismissed for want of prosecution and also the order dated 25.11.2024 whereby the Application for restoration of the Complaint had been dismissed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal, are that the Appellant/Complainant initially filed the Complaint before the District Commission. The Complaint came up for hearing on 22.03.2021 but neither the Complainant nor his Counsel had appeared and as such the Complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated

22.03.2021. Said order dated 22.03.2021 is reproduced as under:

“The Advocate for the Complainant had lastly appeared on 17.2.2020. One year has passed. It appears that the Complainant is not interested to continue with the present Complaint. It is 4.00 P.M. No information is received from the Complainant or from his Counsel even telephonically. Even zimni orders of this case are duly uploaded on the internet. Therefore, this Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the record room.”

4. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant had filed an Application for restoration of the Complaint, which was also dismissed by the District Commission vide order dated 25.11.2024. Said order dated 25.11.2024 is reproduced as under:

“The Complaint of the Complainant was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 22.03.2021.

This Application has been filed for restoration of the Complaint by setting aside the order dated 22.03.2021.

This Commission has got no power to review its own order. There is no merit in the Application and the same is hereby dismissed.”

5. Both the said orders dated 22.03.2021 and 25.11.2024 passed by the District Commission are subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal before this Commission.

6. Mr. Raj K. Selwan, learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the District Commission had dismissed the Complaint for want of prosecution vide order dated

22.03.2021 in a hurried manner. Thereafter, the delay had