Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
Ld. Advocates for both parties are present. Today there is a direction upon the appellant for taking steps. But the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that he is not in a position to take step.
Because it is an appeal I am of the view that the matter should be decided on merit.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment dt. 26.02.2015 passed by Ld. DCDRC Howrah allowing CC/360/2013 the appellant preferred this appeal. The matter was decided ex parte.
The fact of the case of the complainant is in short like that the complainant filed a petition u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for a direction upon the OPs to hand over possession of the A schedule flat measuring about 1600 sq. ft. and also restraining them from transferring the said flat to any third party and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with litigation cost.
The Ld. Forum below framed following points for consideration.
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Considering the materials on record that the forum below passed the impugned order.
It appears from the order dt. 16.06.2020 that the Hon’ble NCDRC disposed of the revision petition no. 505/2016 with specific observation in paragraph no. 11 to the effect “The bench has consciously refrained from entering into the consumer dispute, or making any critique of the facts and specificities of the case, or recording any observations or comments etc., since the first appeals have as yet to be adjudicated on merit by the State Commission and the bench does not in any manner want to colour in vision of the State Commission.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of position of law I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, A/905/2015 is dismissed. Impugned order is upheld. There shall be no order as to the costs.
