National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. vs Saroj Bala & Anr. on 29 July, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 25/04/2016 in Complaint No. 302/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. BESTECH HOUSE, 124, SECTOR-44, GURGAON-122002 HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SAROJ BALA & ANR. W/O. SH. RAVI CHOPRA, R/O. H NO. 1611, SECTOR-15 PANCHKULA HARYANA 2. SH. HIMANSHU CHOPRA S/O. SH. RAVI CHOPRA, R/O. H NO. 1611, SECTOR-15 PANCHKULA HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Jigyasa Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate Dated : 29 Jul 2016 ORDER Challenge in this appeal by Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., a real Estate Developer, sole Opposite Party in the complaint, is to the orders dated 25.4.2016 & 4.4.2016 in Complaint Case No. 302 of 2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "the -2- State Commission"). By the order dated 25.4.2016, the State Commission has directed that the Appellant shall be proceeded against ex-parte as it had remained unrepresented when the case was taken up for consideration. By the former order dated 4.4.2016, the State Commission, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86, had closed the right of the Appellant to file the Written Version, as the same was not filed within a period of 45 days, as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In so far as the question of filing of Written Version, after the expiry of the said period is concerned, vide order dated 1.6.2016, we have already held that in the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, no fault could be found with the order dated 25.4.2016, and, therefore, the question of validity of the said order does not survive. It is stated by learned counsel for the Appellant that a Special Leave Petition has already been preferred against the said order.
In so far as the question of ex-parte proceedings against the Appellant is concerned, having perused the explanation furnished for the absence of its Counsel before the State Commission, when the complaint was taken up for consideration, we are of the view that Counsel for the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in putting his appearance before the State Commission.
-3-Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the order dated 25.4.2016, the order dated 04.4.2016 is set aside. In other words, subject to the final order, which may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition, short of filing a Written Version, the Appellant shall be entitled to defend the complaint to the extent permissible in law.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER