State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Jitesh Estate Pt.Ltd vs Rajendra on 2 November, 2018
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
ORDER SHEET
REVISION PETITION NO. 56/2014
VISHANDAS PARWANI S/O SHRI GULAB RAI PARWANI
VS.
DILBAGH SINGH REEL S/O LATE SHRI GURUBACHAN SINGH AND TWO
OTHERS
2.11.2018 This order will govern disposal of revision petitions
No. 52/14 (M/s Jitesh Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manoj Jain and
others), 53/14 (Ms. Vishnu Hightech Builders and Developers
vs. Dr. Arun M.S. and others), 54/14 (Ms. Vishnu Hightech
Builders and Developers vs. Rajendra Kumar Awasthi and
others), 55/14 (Vishnu Hightech Builders and Developers vs.
Vishnu Sharan Saxena and others), as we find that the facts
and questions of law involved in this matter are same.
Ms. Sangita Moharir, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents
No. 1 and 2
None for respondent No.3.
2. By this revision, the petitioner, who was opposite party before the Forum, has challenged the interim order dated 9.5.2014, by which while rejecting the petitioner's application, filed about maintainability of the complaint, the Forum has imposed cost of Rs.500/-.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner is aggrieved only by the part of the order by which cost of Rs.500/- has been imposed. She submits that the : 2 : application was submitted banafidely and as such imposition of cost was not justified.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 has argued that the Forum has committed no error in imposing cost of Rs.500/- while rejecting the application. He submits that because of filing of the said application delay has been caused and the complainants have to appear before this Commission also, as the order has been challenged in revision. He submits that the cost imposed be maintained.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order and the entire facts and circumstances, in our considered view the imposition of cost of Rs.500/- appears to be on higher side. However, keeping in view the fact that the complainants have to face delay and to appear before this Commission, we maintain the imposition of cost but reduced it to Rs.200/-.
6. With the aforesaid modification this revision is disposed of. We expect the Forum to expedite the disposal of the complaint.
7. Copy of this order be placed in the record of the above mentioned revision petitions.
(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) (S.D.Agrawal) (Dr. Monika Malik)
President Member Member
mm