State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arsh Property Experts Pvt. Ltd. vs Dulan Gogoi on 27 May, 2024
RP - 18/2022 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS. DULAN GOGOI
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 05.09.2022
Date of hearing: 10.01.2024
Date of Decision: 27.05.2024
REVISION PETITION NO.18/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH: Mohd Moshin, Director)
FLAT NO. 11065, TOWER - 4, BLOCK - A,
GH-07, CROSSING REPUBLIC,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH - 20106.
M/S. AGGRAWAL PACKERS & MOVERS.
(Through: Mr. Vineet Taneja, Advocate)
...Revisionist
VERSUS
MR. DULAN GOGOI,
A82, 3RD FLOOR, MAIDAN GARHI ROAD,
CHATTARPUR ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI - 110074.
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 5
RP - 18/2022 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS. DULAN GOGOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Vineet Taneja and Himanshu, counsel for the revisionist.
None for respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 353/2021 titled as Dulan Gogoi vs. Arsh property expert Pvt. Ltd., wherein the right of the Revisionist/Opposite Party to file written statement was closed.
2. The Counsel for the Revisionist/Opposite Party submitted that a notice was issued to the Revisionist without a copy of the complaint for the appearance on 11.04.2022. Consequently, the counsel on the behalf of Revisionist appeared before the District Commission on 11.04.2022 and filed its vakalatnama. Subsequently, on the same day, the Revisionist received a copy of the complaint. Accordingly, the District Commission directed the Revisionist to file a reply to the complaint. However, it was discovered that pages 11, 15, and 22 were missing from the copy of the complaint. Therefore, on 07.07.2022, the next hearing date, the Revisionist's counsel informed the District Commission about the missing pages and requested for supply of these mission pages. However, the District Commission did not address this issue and proceeded to close the Revisionist's right to file a written statement. The counsel for the Revisionist also submitted the non filing of the written statement was DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 5 RP - 18/2022 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS. DULAN GOGOI neither deliberate nor intentional. Pressing the aforementioned submissions, the Revisionist/Opposite Party prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.07.2022 of the District Commission.
3. Reply to the present revision petition is not filed by the Respondent.
4. We have perused the material before us and heard the counsel for the Revisionist.
5. The main question for consideration whether District commission erred in closing the right of the Revisionist to file its written statement.
6. The counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the page 11,15 and 22 were mission from the copy of the complaint. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the District Commission and same is reproduced below:
7. It is evident from the order dated 07.07.2022 that the documents on pages 15, 16, and 17 of the complaint belonged to the Revisionist. However, the Revisionist did not provide any evidence to suggest that DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 5 RP - 18/2022 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS. DULAN GOGOI these documents were not available to them. Therefore, without any supporting evidence, the submission made by the revisionist cannot be given any credence.
8. Furthermore, it is admitted fact the Revisionist received the copy of the complaint on 11.04.2022. The right to file the written statement was closed on 11.05.2022. Further, it is well settled position that if the written statement filed beyond the period of 30 days, which can be extended for 15 more days, it is upon the discretion of the adjudicating Court to condone the delay if sufficient cause has been provided by the Revisionist. However, the Revisionist failed to file the written statement within stipulated period.
9. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has left no room for confusion and has already settled the legal position in this regard in New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Hilii Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd. (2020) SCC 75. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Consumer Commission cannot condone the delay beyond the statutory limit of 45 days from the date of service. Thus, we opine that District Commission has only exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by not taking the written statement of the Revisionist on record. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the District Commission.
10. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, Qutub Institutional Area in Consumer Complaint No.353/2021 titled as Dulan Gogoi vs. Arsh Property Experts Pvt. Ltd.
11. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.18/2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 5 RP - 18/2022 D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
ARSH PROPERTY EXPERTS PVT. LTD. VS. DULAN GOGOI
12. The Parties are directed to appear before District Commission on 22.07.2024.
13. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
27.05.2024 LR-ZA DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 5