National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Taneja Developers & ... vs Raj Kishor on 17 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2186 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 01/09/2017 in Complaint No. 1010/2015 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE, MR.PARAS ARORA.
R/O.9,KASTURBA GANDHI MARG. NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. RAJ KISHOR G-26/445, SECTOR-3, ROHINI. DELHI-110085 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 May 2018 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellant
:
Mr. Rudresh Jagdale, proxy counsel
for Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Mr. A.B. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Sony Kumar, Advoate
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th MAY 2018
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These two first appeals have been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.09.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') vide which, the present appellants were ordered to be proceeded against exparte. The impugned order which is the subject matter of FA No. 2186/2017, was passed in consumer complaint C-1010/15 filed by respondent Raj Kishor, which reads as under:-
"01.09.2017 Item no. 34, C-1010/15 Present : Sh. A.B. Pandey, counsel for the Complainant None for the OP.
Counsel for complainant has filed receipt of courier showing dispatch of notice on 07.05.2017 and track report showing delivery on 08.07.2017. Since none has appeared for OP. It is proceeded exparte.
Complainant to file evidence by affidavit within eight weeks.
Re-notify on 06.04.2018.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) Bench-2 (Anil Srivastava) Member Bench-2 "
3. The impugned order dated 01.09.2017 in the other complaint filed by Tarun Aggarwal, C-84/16 reads as follows:-
"01.09.2017 Item no. 33, C-84/16 Present : Sh. A.B. Pandey, counsel for the Complainant None for the OP.
Counsel for complainant has filed receipt of courier showing dispatch of notice on 07.05.2017 and track report showing delivery on 08.07.2017. Since none has appeared for OP. It is proceeded exparte.
Complainant to file evidence by affidavit within eight weeks.
Re-notify on 06.04.2018.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) Bench-2 (Anil Srivastava) Member Bench-2"
4. The notice of the two appeals was sent to the respondents who appeared and contested the appeals through counsel.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases argued that the notice sent by the State Commission had been received by their law firm on 01.09.2017, although the appellants had received the same earlier. The learned counsel further stated that they were present before the State Commission on that date itself for attending to certain other cases, but the counsel appearing before the State Commission on 01.09.2017, did not have knowledge about the present two cases. After attending to another case, "TDI vs. Satish Kumar Kuchhal", the counsel enquired about the proceedings in the present two cases, but was told that the cases had been proceeded exparte against them. The said counsel mentioned the matter before the Bench of the State Commission and requested them to reconsider their decision, but the Bench refused to do so. The learned counsel argued that in the interest of justice, the order passed by the State Commission should be set aside and they should be allowed to contest the case on merits.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the appellant had received notice from the State Commission on 08.07.2017 and hence, the appellant should have put in appearance before that Commission on the date of hearing, i.e., on 01.09.2017. The explanation given by the appellant was not sufficient to grant any relief to them.
7. The learned counsel further stated that the present matters had earlier come before this Commission on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the shape of FA No. 280/2016 and FA No. 281/2016, both of which were decided on 22.02.2017. As per that order, the complainants as well as present appellant had been asked to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 14.03.2017. It was, therefore, the duty of the appellant to ensure their presence before the State Commission.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
9. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the present appeals. Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is ordered to be condoned.
10. It is a fact admitted by the appellants themselves that they received notice from the State Commission in proceedings in the appeals on 08.07.2017 and hence, they should have ensured their presence before the State Commission on 01.09.2017. It has been explained, however, by the learned counsel for the appellants that they received information about the pendency of appeals on 01.09.2017 only. A counsel who had gone to the State Commission to appear in some other matter on that very day, learnt about the pendency of the two present matters as well. However, by the time, the said counsel mentioned the matter before the State Commission, the appellant had already been proceeded against exparte. Even after making request, the State Commission refused to revoke the exparte order. From the facts stated above, it appears that the appellants deserve to be given an opportunity to be heard on merits by the State Commission. Even if their counsel could not appear promptly before the State Commission, the party should not suffer for the fault of their counsel in any manner. In any case, it is a fact not denied by the other party that a counsel did mention the matter before the State Commission on 01.09.2017 itself. The State Commission should not have been in such a hurry to proceed exparte against the appellants. The interest of justice, equity and fair play demand, therefore, that the impugned order should be set aside and the appellants should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. Both the appeals are, therefore, accepted and the impugned orders passed by the State Commission are set aside. The State Commission shall hear both the parties on merits and dispose of the consumer complaints in accordance with law.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER