NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/694/2013

SHRI KRISHAN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. P.D. GUPTA

19 Feb 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 03/09/2013 in Complaint No. 42/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SHRI KRISHAN GUPTA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :MR. P.D. GUPTA
For the Respondent :
Ms. Arti Bansal & Mr. Aarumugam, Advocates

Dated : 19 Feb 2014
ORDER

This first Appeal under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, “the State Commission”) in complaint No.42/2008.  By the impugned

-2-

order, the complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission in default as neither the complainant nor his counsel was present when the case was taken up for hearing in the revised list.  The State Commission has also noted that even on the previous date, i.e. 02.04.2013 nobody had appeared for the complainant.

               On notice Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate has appeared for the respondent Delhi Development Authority and has filed reply to the appeal, supporting the impugned order.

               Having heard learned counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the nature of the claim made by the complainant, viz. allotment of a flat under the self-finance scheme launched in the year 1978 as also the fact that the complaint was filed in October 2008, we are of the opinion that grant of an opportunity of hearing to the complainant on merits of the complaint would subserve the ends of justice.  Additionally, it is also the stand of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he did appear before the State Commission on 02.04.2013 but somehow his presence was not recorded in the order sheet.  On that date, it was directed that the complaint will be listed before another Bench on 03.09.2013 for arguments.

 

               Learned counsel for the appellant also asserts that having waited for allotment of a flat for all these years, there was no reason why the complainant, a senior citizen aged about 73 years, would not pursue his case when he had been himself pressing for early disposal of the complaint.  We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant and his counsel, who has filed his own affidavit in support of the appeal.

               Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is restored to file of the State Commission for disposal on merits.

          Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.03.2014 for further proceedings.  Since the complaint was filed in the year 2008, we are confident that the State Commission will try to dispose it of expeditiously.  The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.