Challenge in these three First Appeals, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a Real Estate Developer, a Cooperative Society and one Techno Elevators, Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 respectively in the Complaint, is to the order dated 29.04.2011, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2005. By the impugned order, while partly accepting the Complaint filed by Respondent/Complainant No.1 in all the Appeals, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as also the Supplier of the lift in installing a defective lift, which hit the head of the deceased, father of Complainant No.2, resulting in his death, the State Commission has directed the Appellants herein to pay to Complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.33,60,000/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the accident, i.e. 19.09.2004, till realization; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony etc.; and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. The Appellants have been made liable to pay the said amounts jointly and severally. Since the main grievance of the Appellant - Society (Opposite Party No.2), in Appeal No.19 of 2012, is that notice in the Complaint was neither issued nor served on it, due to which it has been deprived of its valuable legal right to contest the Complaint, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present Appeals. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel, appearing for the Society, that notice of filing of the Complaint had not been issued to the said Society. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants has very fairly stated that on inspection of the original record, made available to him on our direction, he has not found any evidence, which may even remotely show that notice in the Complaint had in fact been issued and served on the Society. In that view of the matter, we allow all the Appeals; set aside the order impugned in the Appeals; and restore the Complaint to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. Since evidence on behalf of the Contesting Parties, except the Society, had been filed before the State Commission, we permit the Society to file its Written Version along with supporting evidence by way of affidavit, within six weeks from today. If so advised, it will be open to the Complainants as well as other Contesting Opposite Parties to file additional evidence by way of affidavits, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the affidavit by the Society. Since the Appeals are being allowed on the aforesaid procedural irregularity, for no fault of the Complainants, in order to provide some solace to Complainant No.2, we direct that out of the amounts stated to have been deposited by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be released to the said Complainant, on his filing an affidavit, undertaking to the State Commission to refund the said amount, if so directed, at the time of final disposal of the Complaint. Since the accident, resulting in the loss of a human life, took place as far back as in the year 2004, we request the State Commission to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as practicable and, in any case, not later than three months from the date of filing of the respective affidavits by the parties in terms of this order. All the Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. |
