State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Mr.Pradeep Mukherjee, 2. Mrs.Usha ... vs 1. Dr.Gautam Darda, Neurosurgeon 2. ... on 18 March, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/97/193
1.Mr.Pradeep Mukherjee, r/o.C-301, Chitrakut Building, Kopar Cross Road, Kailash Nagar, Dombivali (West).
2. Mrs.Usha Deepak Kumar Mukherjee, r/o. Flat No.A/101, Plot No.RH-116, Near New Power House, MIDC II, Dombivali (East), Thane - 421 203.
...........Complainant(s) Versus
1. Dr.Gautam Darda, Neurosurgeon, C-II-MS, 88/2, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440 010.
2. Central India Institute of Medical Sciences, 88/2, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440 010.
3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Manganese Ore India Ltd.
3, Mount Road (Ext.) Nagpur
- 440 001.
4. Chief (Medical Service) Manganese Ore India Ltd.
3, Mount Road (Ext.) Nagpur
- 440 001.
............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE:
HONBLE Sou.Usha S. Thakare, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER HONBLE Shri. P.B.Joshi, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT:
Adv.Amonkar i/b. Adv.Pushpa Singhavi for the complainant.
ORDER Per Honble Sou.Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member Adv.Amonkar is present with instructions given by Adv.Pushpa Singhavi for the complainant. Initially, Adv.Pushpa Singhavi filed vakalatnama for the complainant. However, the complainant had taken away papers pertaining to the present complaint from Adv.Singhavi. Today, Adv.Amonkar has filed one envelope on record to show that notice was sent to complainant, Mr.Pradeep Mukherjee by Adv.Pushpa Singhavi, which is returned back. No new address of the complainant is available with the advocate.
Opponent nos.3 & 4 are already discharged. Opponent no.1-Dr.Gautam Darda already died. Notice issued to the opponent no.2 returned back without service. Notices were issued to the complainant at the instance of the Commission. Present complaint is pending since the year 1997. Latest address of the complainant is not available with the Commission or his advocate. New advocate is not appointed by the complainant. Complainant never turned up before this Commission to make enquiry about progress of this complaint. Even he did not appear before Mahalok Adalat. Since, complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint; complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced on 18th March, 2014.
[HON'BLE Sou.Usha S. Thakare] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE Shri P.B.Joshi] JUDICIAL MEMBER pgg