At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant: Prerna, Advocate. For the Respondent: -----
Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This first appeal has been filed, with delay of 573 days, under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.03.2019 passed in complaint no. 84 of 2018 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the material on record, including the impugned Order dated 25.03.2019 of the State Commission and the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay.
3. Vide its Order of 25.03.2019 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint in default as no one appeared on behalf of the complainant on that date (25.03.2019) as well as on the previous date i.e. 11.01.2019.
4. Learned counsel has elaborated upon the reasons and circumstances for filing this appeal with delay. Counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to elaborate upon the merits of the case as well as upon the circumstances which prevented the complainant and his counsel from appearing in the State Commission. It has been contended that if opportunity be provided to pursue the complaint on merits and of being heard there are fair prospects of this complaint being allowed by the State Commission.
5. In order to facilitate arriving at a just conclusion on merits and also keeping in perspective the intervening covid situation, the delay in filing this appeal stands condoned.
6. It transpires that the consumer complaint was filed in the State Commission seeking redress against the cancellation of the plot. Facts as have been alleged in the complaint show that the complainant on 15.07.1989 applied for booking of a plot in the Indirapuram Scheme. The estimated cost of the plot was Rs.2,42,000/-. Substantial amount towards the same was deposited also. However, later on the cost of the plot was increased to Rs.7,36,897/-. Complainant made representations against the same and eventually sought more time for depositing such amount. Respondent No. 2 is said to have orally assured him that he could take more time for depositing the amount towards the allotment. However, vide letter dated 13.01.2011 his allotment was cancelled.
7. The consumer complaint contains full details which does not need to be reproduced at this stage. It transpires that on the date fixed in the State Commission neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint in default. The impugned Order also shows that on the previous date (11.01.2019) also none appeared for the complainant.
8. This Commission, at this stage, does not propose to delve into or touch upon the merits of this case but considering the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances in their totality, it is felt just and conscionable that reasonable and sufficient opportunity be further provided to the complainant for adjudication of his complaint on merit in the State Commission.
9. As such, in the interest of justice, without making any observations on merits of the case the Order dated 25.03.2019 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case professionally before the State Commission.
10. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 25.10.2021. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint on merit after providing adequate opportunity to the complainant to pursue the matter as per law.
11. The principal onus of informing the respondents - opposite parties of this instant Order shall be of the appellant– complainant. He shall do so within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof thereof before the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing before it (25.10.2021).
However, if for whatever reason, the respondents – opposite parties do not appear before the State Commission on 25.10.2021, the State Commission shall issue notice for requiring their presence in order to proceed in accordance with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission. State Commission in such a situation may also require the complainant to take adequate steps in order to facilitate service on the opposite parties.
In case the respondents – opposite party or parties have objection to the complaint being restored, it may file appropriate application before the State Commission, submitting that it will raise its objection before this Commission (National Commission). In such contingency, the State Commission shall not proceed further with the complaint for a period of three months. In the said period of three months, the respondents – opposite party or parties may file appropriate application before this Commission to raise its or their objection.
12. If the opposite party or parties move appropriate application in this Commission within the aforesaid period of three months, or before, further proceedings of the State Commission shall be s
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ubject to the orders that may be passed by this Commission on such application. If the opposite party or parties do not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid three months (or before), the State Commission shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 13. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this appeal and to learned counsel for appellant as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.