State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.J.B.Construction vs Shri. Ajay Kumarsingh S/O Mathura on 29 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
Revision
Petition No. RP/13/41
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 25/07/2013 in Case No. cc/688/2008 of District Nagpur)
1. M/s.J.B.Construction
through
shri.Parmanand C.Rohera R/o 205-A,
cement Road, Dharampeth Extension,
Shivaji Nagar,Nagpur,Maharastra,
Maharashstra acting through its POA
Holder Shri.Purshottam P.Rohera,R/o
205-A,pushpanjali,205-A Shivaji
Nagar,
cement road,Dharampeth extn.
Nagpur
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri. Ajay
KumarSingh S/o Mathura
Prasad Singh R/o 23,bajiprabhu Nagar,
Nagpur,Maharashtra
2. Shri.Udaykumar
S/o.Vasantkumar
Betharia, R/o 150,Civil Lines,
Amravati Road,Nagpur,
Tah&Distt.Nagpur,Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT: Advocate Girish Purohit
Adv.V.S.Deshpande
ORDER
(Dated 29/08/2013) PER MR.B.A.SHAIKH, HON'BLE PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is the Revision Petition filed by the Original Opponent No.1 against the order dated 25/07/2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. Advocate Girish Purohit appeared for the Revision Petitioner and Adv.V.S.Deshpande appeared for Original Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein. He filed a pursis stating that he has already filed his power in the original complaint. He submits that he has no objection to give permission to the Petitioner/Ori.Opponent No.1 to file written version and evidence affidavit subject to costs of Rs.5000/-.
2. Perusal of the record shows that initially, the complaint was dismissed in lemine by the Forum below. The appeal preferred against that order was allowed and the complaint was remanded back by this Commission to give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to decide the dispute after hearing both the parties. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble National Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission upheld the order of this Commission and directed both the parties to appear before the Forum below on 3/4/2013. The Revision Petitioner did not appear before the Forum below on that date. Therefore, the Forum below issued notice on 11/7/2013 to the Revision Petitioner i.e. Original Opposite Party No.1 (for short O.P.No.1). The O.P.No.1 appeared before the Forum below on 23/7/2013 and moved an application seeking permission to file the written version alongwith affidavit.
3. The Forum below found that exparte order was already passed on 21/4/2009 against the O.P.No.1 and the said order is not set-aside and it has no jurisdiction to set aside that order. Therefore, the Forum below, by passing impugned order, closed the evidence and fixed the complaint for final argument. It is seen that this Commission, while remanding the complaint, had directed that opportunity be given to both the parties to lead evidence to both the parties. In view of said order, it is deemed that exparte order was also set-aside while remanding the complaint. Thereforfe, it was necessary for the Forum below to give opportunity to the O.P.No.1 to file written version and evidence affidavit. Moreover, Learned Advocate of the complainant/Respondent 1 herein has given no objection to allow the O.P.No.1 to file written version and to file evidence affidavit subject to heavy cost of Rs.5000/-. He also submits that the complaint is time bound and the Revision Petitioner did not appear as per the direction of the National Commission and hence heavy cost of Rs.5000/- may be saddled on him. The Advocate of the Revision Petitioner submitted that as the Petitioner is 74 years old, he could not appear, before forum below.
4. We find that the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed subject to suitable cost.
ORDER i. Revision Petition is allowed.
ii.
Impugned order passed by the Forum below for closing the evidence is set aside.
iii.
The application made by the Revision Petitioner i.e. the O.P.No.1 seeking permission to file written version and ti file evidence affidavit is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by the Revision Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 herein. The said cost be paid within a week to him. If the cost is paid within a week from today, the District Forum below shall take on record the Written version and evidence affidavit of the Ori.O.P.No.1.
iv.
Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties as well as to the Forum below immediately.
[HON'ABLE MR.
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER Rvp