State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parasnath Builder & Develapers vs Smt Tyoti Sharma on 20 July, 2021
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.305 / 2020.
Shri Parasnath Builder & Developers
India Pvt. Ltd & Anr. .... APPELLANTS.
Versus
Smt. Jyoti Sharma. .... RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
20.7.2021 Ms. Shivali Singh Parihar, counsel on behalf of Shri Mahavir
Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent. With consent heard finally.
This appeal arises out of the order dated 22.1.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, Bench 2 (for short the 'District Commission') whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent / complainant and issued directions to refund the amount to the respondent with interest @12 % with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- with a further direction that in case the amount is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest @12% p.a.
- 2-
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte by the District Commission without properly appreciating the fact that the appellants / opposite parties were not duly served with the notice of the complaint. She submits that even assuming that the appellant no.1 / opposite party was served, but clearly the appellant no.2, who was also opposite party in the complaint was not served as would be clear from the record.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / complainant argued that the appellants were duly sered and the District Commission has rightly proceeded ex-parte against them. She however, submits that in case this Commission finds that the service of notice was not duly effected appropriate cost may be imposed on the appellants and matter may be remanded for deciding it afresh.
4. Having gone through the records, we find that the service of notice was not duly effected on appellant no.2. In the circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent on or before the date of appearance of the parties before the District Commission.
- 3-
5. Copy of the complaint with documents be supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties on the date of appearance. The appellants / opposite parties shall file reply of the complaint within 30 days from the date of appearance.
6. Parties to appear before the District Commission on 23.8.2021.
7. The District Commission shall thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law and shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) PRESIDENT Phadke