Case Note & Summary
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) heard an appeal execution (AE No. 31/2025) filed by Malvinder Singh against Unicity Projects, challenging an order dated 29th January 2025 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Complaint SC/3/EA/41/2022. The appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay (NC/IA/7674/2025). On the date of hearing, the appellant's counsel did not appear despite being called at 10:45 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 12:00 p.m. The Commission observed that the appellant appeared not interested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order was passed by Hon'ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member, on 16th July 2025.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Appeal - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Section 72, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Appeal dismissed as appellant failed to appear despite being called thrice - Held that non-appearance indicates lack of interest in pursuing the matter (Para 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear.
Final Decision
Appeal Execution No. NC/AE/31/2025 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Dismissal for non-prosecution
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
- Section 72
Case Details
2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 40
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the order dated 29th January 2025 in Complaint SC/3/EA/41/2022 and also sought condonation of delay.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the State Commission.
Previous Decisions
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab passed an order on 29th January 2025 in Complaint SC/3/EA/41/2022.
Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to appellant's absence.
Submissions/Arguments
None appeared for the appellant despite being called thrice.
Ratio Decidendi
Non-appearance of the appellant indicates lack of interest in pursuing the matter, warranting dismissal for non-prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
None appears for the Appellant even after being called at 10:45 a.m.; 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
It appears that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter.
AE No.31 of 2025 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Procedural History
The appellant filed an appeal execution against the order dated 29th January 2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Complaint SC/3/EA/41/2022, along with an application for condonation of delay. On 16th July 2025, the NCDRC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's absence.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 72
