State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhavana Paul vs M. Tech Developers Ltd. on 5 November, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 05.11.2012 First Appeal No.2012/02 (Arising out of Order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.440/2010) Ms. Bhavana Paul, Appellant/Complainant W/o Sh. Sameer Paul, through Mr. R.B. Srot, C-407, Dreem Apartment, advocate. Plot No.14, Sector -22, Dwarka, New Delhi -45. Versus M. Tech Developers Ltd. .Respondent/Opposite Party 1. Mr. Mohinder Sharma, Managing Director , 2. Mr. Amit Jha, Director, 3. Mr. Mithlesh Jha, Director. All at: M. Tech House, 144-4/A, 4/B, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi -14. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. A complaint case bearing No.440/2010 filed by the complainant against the OP M. Tech Developers Ltd. and its Directors was dismissed by the District Forum-X on account of non-appearance of the complainant and also because the dispute settled between the parties.
2. That is what brings the appellant/complainant in this appeal before this Commission.
3. We have heard Sh. R.B. Srot, counsel for the appellant in this appeal, as there is no need to hear the respondent.
4. The version of the appellant/complainant for non-appearance before the District Forum is that his counsel Sh. R.B. Srot jotted down a wrong date 02.12.2011 in place of correct one 20.09.2011 and that is why the default occurred. There is no plausible reason not to rely and not to act upon this version of the complaint. The cardinal principle of civil jurisprudence is that the case should be decided after hearing the parties on merits. For this reason the complaint dismissed on the ground for want of prosecution is set aside.
5. With regard to other ground of dismissal the matter having been settled between the parties, it is worthy to note that before relying and acting upon compromise alleged to have been arrived between the parties, the Forum should have verified this fact also from the complainant, which was not done and on this ground also dismissal is manifestly erroneous.
6. The appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside, and the case is remitted to the District Forum to decide the case afresh according to law after hearing both the parties.
7. Complainant, through his counsel is directed to appear in the complaint case before the District Forum-X on 06.12.2012
8. A copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the appellant, whereas a copy of this order be sent to District Forum-X to place it on original record of complaint case No.440/2010 and for compliance. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 05th day of November 2012.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri