National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Narendra Bhiku Kerkar vs Narayan Naik & Ors. on 11 August, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 15/07/2015 in Appeal No. 64/2014 of the State Commission Goa) 1. SHRI NARENDRA BHIKU KERKAR MAJOR, S/O BHIKU KERKAR,RESIDENT OF NIL, BORDA, MARGAO GOA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NARAYAN NAIK & ORS. ALIAS NARAYAN BHIKAJI KUNCOLIENKAR S/O BHIKAJI KUNCOLIENKAR AND HIS CHILDREN,H.NO.506, PAJIFOND MARGAO GOA 2. SHRI NARAYAN NAIK AND HIS WIFE RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 3. SMT. NAYANA DAMODAR NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 4. SHRI RAMADAS NARAYAN NAIK (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. (A) ROHIT RAMDAS NAIK, C/O FATIMA FERNANDES, H.NO.667/D,COLVADO, NAVELIM, SALCETE GOA-403707 5. (B) ROHAN RAMDAS NAIK S/O SHRI RAMADAS NARAYAN NAIK MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 6. (C) RAHOL RAMDAS NAIK S/O SHRI RAMADAS NARAYAN NAIK R/O HOUSE NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 7. SMT. SAVITA RAMDAS NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 8. SHRI GHANSHYAM NARAYAN NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 9. SMT. LATHIKA GHANSHYAM NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 10. SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN NAIK AND HIS WIFE RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 11. SMT. GAUTAMI GOVIND NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 12. SMT. MADHURI ASHOK MALWANKAR AND HIS HUSBAND RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 13. SHRI ASHOK MALWANKAR RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 14. SMT. SUMITRA PRAKASH NAIK AND HIS HUSBAND RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 15. SHRI PRAKASH NAIK RESIDENT OF H.NO.506,PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 16. SMT. KALPRISH KESHAV GADEKAR AND HIS HUSBAND H.NO.26 NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE, GOA 17. SHRI KESHAV GADEKAR (A) SHANTADURGA KESHAV GADEKAR, H.NO.26, NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE, PAJIFOND, MARGAO GOA 18. (B) VIRAJ KESHAV GADEKAR H.NO.26 NEAR OLD POWER HOUSE, PAJIFOND,MARGAO GOA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : NEMO For the Respondent : For the Respondent No. 1 : Expired For the legal heirs of Respondent No. 1 : Not substituted For the Respondent No. 2 : NEMO (served) For the legal heirs of Respondent No. 3 : NEMO (not served) (LRs No. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c)) For the Respondent No. 4 : NEMO (not served) For the Respondent No. 5 : NEMO (served) For the Respondents No. 6 to 14 & 14(b) : Mr. Shivraj Goankar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 14 (a) : NEMO (served) Dated : 11 Aug 2021 ORDER Taken up through video conferencing.
1. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist, despite repeated calls.
2. We note that the complaint was instituted before the District Commission in 2009. The District Commission made its Order in 2014. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in 2015. This petition was filed in 2015, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are now in 2021. The respondent no. 1 has expired, his legal heirs have not been substituted. The legal heirs of the respondent no. 3 have not been served.
3. We feel it appropriate, and albeit necessary, to dispose this matter on the basis of the record. As such, we have perused the entire material on record, including inter alia the District Commission's Order dated 30.06.2014, the State Commission's Order dated 15.07.2015 and the petition.
4. The dispute relates to delivery of possession of a flat. The District Commission, vide its Order dated 30.06.2014, allowed the complaint on contest and directed the opposite party (the revisionist herein) to hand over the subject flat complete in all respects alongwith occupancy certificate to the complainants within 30 days of its order and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month from February 1998 till the handing over of the subject flat. The State Commission, vide its impugned Order of 15.07.2015, concurred with the finding of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
5. We note that the District Commission has exhaustively dealt with the relevant issues inherent in the matter. In appeal, the three main arguments made on behalf of the appellant (the revisionist herein) have been comprehensively dealt with by the State Commission (paras 9 to para 18 of its Order refer). The two fora below have returned concurrent findings.
6. The Orders of both fora below are matter of record. We do not feel it necessary to reproduce the facts and evidence all over again. We are conscious of the ambit and scope of this Commission in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986, which is ordinarily exercised in the matters where we see some facts having been wrongly quoted or some inference drawn in such a manner where it may be perverse or some relevant evidence having crucial bearing on the result of the lis having been ignored or a point of law having been overlooked or wrongly addressed or some tangible miscarriage of justice. In the present case, but, we find no such reason for interfering with the concurrent findings of the two fora below.
7. The revision petition no. 2143 of 2015, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. The Order of the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is confirmed. The revisionist (the opposite party before the District Commission) shall comply with the Order dated 30.06.2014 of the District Commission within 30 days from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, both, for 'Enforcement' and for 'Penalty', as per the law.
8. After the afore order was dictated, Mr. Ishaan George, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared on the video conferencing and submitted that an adjournment may be provided. He was requested to make the arguments on the merits of the case but such arguments were not forthcoming. In so far as the request for adjournment is concerned, we have perused the daily Order-sheets from 01.09.2015 onwards, which reflect a non-serious impedimentary and dilatory approach towards the lis and which has led to procrastination of this revision petition for such a long period of time. Despite the fact that the petitioner's counsel appeared after the dictation of the order was already over, we still requested him repeatedly to argue the matter on merits, but notwithstanding our repeated requests the counsel only insisted for an adjournment. We have looked into the merits of the matter thoroughly and have no option than to complete the order as has already been dictated. As such, para 7 above sustains.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER