State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Managing Director, M/S Piyush ... vs Suresh Chand Rustagi Son Of Shri Sohan ... on 20 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Revision Petition No.102 of 2013 Date of Institution: 03.12.2013 Date of Decision: 20.01.2014 1. Managing Director, M/s Piyush Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. A-16, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. 2. Authorized Signatory, M/s Piyush Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. (Piyush Groups), A-16, B-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. Petitioners (Opposite Parties) Versus 1. Suresh Chand Rustagi son of Shri Sohan Lal Rustagi, resident of House No.431, Sector 37, Faridabad. 2. Smt. Usha Devi Rustagi, resident of House No.431, Sector 37, Faridabad. Respondents (Complainants) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
For the Parties: Shri Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Rahul Dhankar, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral):
M/s Piyush Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (petitioners herein) have filed this revision petition against the order dated April 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short District Forum), whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.
2. Suresh Chand Rustagi & Smt. Usha Devi Rustagi-complainants (respondents herein) booked a flat with the petitioners and an allotment letter dated May 23rd, 2007 was issued to them. However, petitioners failed to deliver possession of the flat as per Buyers Agreement.
3. Despite issuing notice, petitioners did not appear and were proceeded exparte vide order dated April 17th, 2013.
4. Since the case is at initial stage and a party must get right to defend in the litigation, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the revision, however, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost to be paid to the respondents -complainants compensating them for delay in the proceeding. Otherwise also learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to exparte proceedings being set aside. It is ordered accordingly.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the District Forum forthwith. Dasti be given to the petitioners, as prayed for.
Announced:
20.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL