National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mata Prasad Verma vs Ashok Aggarwal on 15 October, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3299 OF 2013 (From the order dated 09.07.2013 in Appeal No. 1092 of 2009 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) Mata Prasad Verma S/o Sri Ram Narayan Verma R/o 16 Sri Anandpurdham Dharampur Balrampur - 271 201 Petitioner/Complainant Versus Ashok Aggarwal S/o Sri Ram Avatar Aggarwal R/o Bhagwatiganj Chowk, Bhagwatiganj Balrampur - 271 201 Respondent/Opp. Party (OP) REVISION PETITION NO. 3489 OF 2013 (From the order dated 09.07.2013 in Appeal No. 1092 of 2009 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) Mata Prasad Verma S/o Sri Ram Narayan Verma R/o 16 Sri Anandpurdham Dharampur Balrampur - 271 201 Petitioner/Complainant Versus Ashok Aggarwal S/o Sri Ram Avatar Aggarwal R/o Bhagwatiganj Chowk, Bhagwatiganj Balrampur - 271 201 Respondent/Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Mata Prasad Verma, In person PRONOUNCED ON 15th October, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions arise out of the common order; hence, decided by common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1092/2009 Mata Prasad Verma Vs. Ashok Aggarwal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was affirmed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased Plot No. 16, measuring 2450 sq. ft. from OP/respondent. As per site plan, there should have been gali in the East, 35 ft. road in south side and park of 40 x 50 ft. was to be provided surrounded by 20 ft. road. There was also temple in front of Plot No. 6 & 7. OP time to time changed maps and cheated complainant. Now, OP wants to sell Plot No. 17 and wants to close down doors and windows of south side of complainants plot. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed two complaints before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, but submitted that amendment in the map was done so that there may not be any dispute between the purchasers. It was further submitted that intimation regarding change was given to complainant and other persons. It was denied that complainants plot no. 16 was open from three sides and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaints and directed OP to provide 12 ft. way towards complainants south side of plot and further allowed compensation of Rs.7500/- on account of non-availability of land in east side and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. Appeals filed by the complainant were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.
4. Heard the petitioner in person and perused record.
5. Petitioner submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is not speaking order and has not considered contentions raised by complainant in memo of appeal; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Order of State Commission runs as under:
The file seen and it is held that no compensation can be granted in regard to road/park and the dispute is not under the jurisdiction of SCDRC; hence, the appeal is liable to dismissed.
7. Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that learned State Commission has not considered contentions raised by complainant in memo of appeal and simply dismissed appeals on the ground that dispute does not fall within jurisdiction of State Commission.
8. Honble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:
1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:
We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.
It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission.
9. In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matters back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.
10. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed and the orders dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1092/2009 Mata Prasad Verma Vs. Ashok Aggarwal are set aside and matters are remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding them by speaking orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 17.11.2014.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k