w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajinder Kumar & Another v/s M/s. Omaxe Limited, (Formally Omaxe Construction Ltd.) & Another

    Revision Petition No. 26 of 2014

    Decided On, 05 June 2014

    At, Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE (RETD.) SURJIT SINGH
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. PREM CHAUHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioners: Amandeep Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Munish Gupta, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Surjit Singh, President (Oral):

1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby evidence of the revision petitioners, who filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, has been closed.

2. Revision petitioners have filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, complaining of deficiency in service, in the matter of allotment of flats. Matter was listed for filing rejoinder and evidence on 12.12.2013. Revision petitioners neither filed rejoinder nor did they adduce evidence, when the matter was adjourned to 07.01.2014. Order of adjournment said that revision petitioners were granted last opportunity to file rejoinder and adduce their evidence on the next date, i.e. 07.01.2014. On 07.01.2014, rejoinder was filed, but evidence was not produced. Learned District Forum then passed the impugned order.

3. Revision petitioners submit that counsel engaged to represent them, before the learned District Forum, did not hear the second part of the order viz. that in addition to filing rejoinder, evidence was also required to be adduced, on the date fixed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. The very purpose and the object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to protect the consumers against unfair trade practices, adopted by the sellers of goods and providers of service and such unfair trade practices may be in the nature of deficiency in service, defect in goods, overcharging of price etc. etc. Undoubtedly, Act provides for decision of the complaint within ninety days, but this provision is meant to help the consumer, so that his/her grievance is addressed at the earliest. Therefore, this time limit cannot to be used in such a manner that the sellers of goods or service providers are put in an advantageous position and the customer is deprived of the remedy.

6. Revision against this kind of orders, is permissible, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which inter alia, says that the State Commission has jurisdiction to call for records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute, which is pending before any District Forum. Limitation for filing revision petition is ninety days, vide Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Petition was filed within ninety days, if the time spent to procure certified copy of the impugned order, is excluded. Application for supply of copy was moved on 22.03.2014 and copy was supplied on 25.03.2014.

7. In view of the above stated position, revision petition is allowed, impugned order set aside and it is ordered that learned District Forum shall afford one more opportunity to the revision petitioners/complainants to adduce their evidence. We have been told that respondents/opposite parties have already filed their evidence. Now, if the revision petitioners/complainants adduce the evidence, because of the passing of this order, re

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

spondents/opposite parties shall have an opportunity to rebut the same. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, on 24.06.2014, on which date matter is stated to be already fixed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
O R