National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Tdi Infratech Ltd. vs Jasleen Wlia & Ors. on 3 April, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 07/03/2018 in Appeal No. 7/2018 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. M/S. TDI INFRATECH LTD. SCO 144-145, SECTOR 117-118, AIRPORT ROAD, SAS NAGAR MOHALI PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JASLEEN WLIA & ORS. W/O. MR. KHUSHDEEP SINGH WALIA, R/O. H.NO. 1216, SECTOR 42-B, CHANDIGARH 2. MR. KHUSHDEEP SINGH WALIA, S/O. KARNAL SINGH WALIA, R/O. H.NO. 1216, SECTOR 42-B, CHANDIGARH 3. BENITO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. OFFICE AT 14, LADY HARDING ROAD, GOLE MARKET NEW DELHI-110001 4. CANNES PROPRETY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. OFFICE AT SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH MARG, GOLE MARKET NEW DELHI-110001 5. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 9, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Sagdale, Advocate with Ms. Sneha Jheetay, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondents 1 & 2 :
Mr. Himanshu Dhuper, Advocate For the Respondents 3-5 : NEMO Dated : 03 Apr 2019 ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the revision petitioner- builder co. and the respondents no. 1 & 2 (complainants). None is present for the respondents no. 3 to 5. Perused the material on record.
2. This is a case wherein allegations having ingredients of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been made against the builder co.
3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 18.04.2017 closed the right of the builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 & 2) to file their written version:
Reply not filed by OP Nos. 1 and 2. However, OP Nos. 1 and 2 has filed MA application No. 64/2017 under Section 8 Read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 for referring the matter to the arbitration. However, perusal of file shows that 30+15 days period for filing written version by OP Nos. 1 and 2 has expired. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court on 04.12.2015 in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. This Forum does not have any power to extend the time frame for filing written version beyond 45 days. Since the reply is not filed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 till today, therefore, filing of written version is struck off.
On the previous day of hearing Sh. Sukaam Gupta, advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP Nos. 3 and 4. Today neither OP Nos. 3 and 4 appeared nor filed the POA and reply despite repeated calls. Therefore, OP Nos. 3 and 4 are proceeded against ex-parte. To come up on 19.05.2017 for filing reply to the MA application.
4. The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2018 dismissed the revision petition filed by the builder co. before it on limitation:
Therefore, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been pleaded/proved on the record to condone the long delay of 232 days. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
5. The present revision petition has been filed by the builder co. in this Commission against the said Order dated 07.03.2018 of the State Commission.
6. Without in any manner attempting to examine or adjudicate on the case on merit, we observe that allegations having ingredients of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been made against the revision petitioner - builder co. in the complaint before the District Forum.
7. We note that the builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 & 2 in the District Forum) did not file their written version within the prescribed statutory period of 30 days or even within the extended period of 45 days. The District Forum, therefore, closed their right to file written version.
8. We are but of the opinion that this being a complaint of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, before the forum of original jurisdiction (the District Forum), it should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit, with the affording of the due opportunity to all the parties involved to adduce their evidence / defence, and should also be speedily disposed of.
9. On the one hand we note that if the builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 and 2) are not allowed to file their written versions, it would compromise their defence. On the other hand we also note that the builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 to 2) did not file their written version within the prescribed statutory period of 30 days or the extended period of 45 days, thereby impeding the comprehensive and holistic examination of the case on merit and its speedy disposal.
10. In the interest of justice, it is just and appropriate to provide one opportunity to the builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 to 2) to file their written version, subject to just and reasonable cost. In the facts and specificities of the case, we deem a cost of Rs. 1 lakh as just and reasonable.
11. The builder co. (opposite parties no. 1 to 2) are allowed to file their written version within four weeks from today, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1 lakh, out of which Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the respondents no. 1 & 2 (complainants) directly in their name by way of demand draft and Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, within a period of four weeks from today.
12. All parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on the date fixed by the District Forum in the proceedings before it.
13. Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to all parties (including the respondent no. 1 & 2 - complainants) within ten days by the Registry.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER