National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chandra Kanta vs M-Tech Developers Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 29 July, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 27/04/2016 in Complaint No. 276/2015 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. CHANDRA KANTA W/O. SHRI BHUSAN PRAKASH, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2/47-A, SHIVAJI NAGAR, GURGAON-HAYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD. & 2 ORS. HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE: ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014 2. SHRI MAHENDRA SHARMA HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE : ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014 3. SHRI AMIT JHA DIRECTOR, M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD., ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V. M. Bharadwaj, Advocate with Mr. G. P. Singh, Advocate Ms. Sunita C., Advocate Dated : 29 Jul 2016 ORDER Since all the four Appeals arise out of a common order, these are being disposed of by this common order.
All these four Appeals have been filed by the Complainants against the common order dated 27.04.2016, passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission'), in Complaint Cases No. 274-277 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed all the said Complaints for non-prosecution as the Complainants remained unrepresented when the Complaints were taken up for consideration. It has also been observed in the impugned order that even on an earlier occasion, Complainants or their Counsel were absent.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the documents on record, including the affidavit dated 24.5.2016 filed by an Associate of the Advocate, who had been engaged by the Complainants to pursue the Complaints, we are of the opinion that the Appellants have made out a sufficient cause for grant of an opportunity for hearing in the Complaints.
At this juncture, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Opposite Parties submits that since the Opposite Parties were contemplating filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the Complaints, as per the legal advice received by them, Written Statements were not filed. He prays that since the Complaints were dismissed on account of default on the part of the Complainants and are now being restored for consideration on merits, the Respondents/Opposite Parties may be granted sometime to file their Written Versions, but, without prejudice to their contention, that complaints are not maintainable. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants states that in order to avoid further delay in the trial of the Complaints, she does not have objection to the grant of a reasonable time to the Opposite Parties to file Written Statements.
Consequently, all the Appeals are allowed; the impugned order in all the complaints, is set aside and the aforesaid Complaints are restored to the Board of State Commission for adjudication on merits. We direct that if the Opposite Parties file their written versions within 30 days from today, the same shall be taken into consideration.
The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 8.9.2016, for further proceedings, in accordance with law.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER