National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... vs Rakesh Kumar on 25 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4613 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 26.03.2013 in F. Appeal No. 108 of 2013 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ) With IA/7602/2013 (Stay) Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. (Formerly Intime Promoters Ltd.) Having its Registered Office at 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 01. Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus Rakesh Kumar S/o Ishwar Singh R/o House No. 194, Village Nathpur Tehsil and District Sonepat At Present Rohini Delhi Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar and Mr. Joginder Antil, Advocates PRONOUNCED ON 25th November, 2014 O R D E R PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 108/2013 Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. L-83 was allotted by OP/petitioner to Ashok Kumar, from whom complainant/respondent purchased plot. Complainant paid instalments along with entire EDC charges of Rs.1,57,000/- to the OP. Complainant approached OP to handover possession, but OP illegally demanded interest and additional EDC charges Rs.3,99,662/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant being reallottee is not consumer of the OP and complaint is not maintainable and rightly demanded EDC charges and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP not to charge EDC charges and interest on EDC and further allowed interest @ 9% p.a. and further directed to handover possession of plot. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by Leaned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. As far application for condonation of delay is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that copy of the impugned order was received on 5.4.2013 and papers were forwarded to the Advocate for filing revision petition. As papers sent were incomplete, remaining documents could be supplied to the Advocate by 11.7.2013. It was further submitted that documents were sent to Legal Officer Mr. Siddarth Arora for consideration, but Mr. Siddarth Arora left services in August, 2013 and Associate working with the Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ankit Lal also left Counsels office and in such circumstances, revision petition could not be filed in time. On subsequent inquiry, they came to know that revision petition has not been filed and later on revision petition was filed, hence, delay of 151 days in filing revision petition may be condoned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay was unintentional and it occurred due to demitting office by Mr. Siddarth Arora and Mr. Anikt Lal; hence, delay in filing revision petition may be condoned in the light of non-speaking impugned order. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay; hence, application for condonation of delay be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that delay in filing revision petition occurred as employee of petitioner and associate of the Counsel for the Petitioner left office and only after inquiry, petitioner came to know that revision petition has not been filed and later on it was filed. As impugned order is non-speaking order, it would be appropriate to condone the delay subject to cost. Consequently, application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the respondent within four weeks from the date of order and delay stands condoned.
In case cost is not paid in the aforesaid period, application will stand dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is non-speaking order as it does not deal with the objections taken by the petitioner in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and District Forum has already considered all aspects at length; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission after mentioning facts and observations of District Forum held as under:
From the perusal of record, it is a case wherein the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant despite of that fact that he has paid huge amount in respect of the plot in question. Due to non delivery of possession the complainant was deprived to enjoy his property and was forced to live in a rented house by paying rent of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite parties, as mentioned above.
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 raised by the appellant in memo of appeal and as learned State Commission has not dealt with grounds taken in the memo of appeal, it would be appropriate to remand the matter 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 petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order 26.03.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 108/2013 Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 08.01.2015.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k