RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.202 of 2011

1- Shri Satyendra Kumar aged 71 years

2- Shri Lakhpati Singh aged 66 years

3- Shri Ram Pratap Singh aged 62 years

4- Shri Dhirendra Kumar aged 55 years

5- Shri Vijay Singh aged 53 years

    All sons of late Shri Mahavir Singh, R/o R-14/33,

     Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad U.P. through Shri Satyendra

     Kumar, joint partner and General Power of

     Attorney.                                                  .. Revisionists.

Versus

1- Shri A.K. Srivastava, President, District Consumer

    Forum, Collectorate, Ghaziabad.

2- Smt. Kiran Shukla, Member, District Consumer

    Forum, Collectorate, Ghaziabad.

3- Ghaziabad Development Authority, Vikas Path,

    Ghaziabad through its Secretary.           …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.                        

None responds.

Date 15.5.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the order dated  12.10.2011, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.144 of 2010, the revisionists Shri Satyendra Kumar and 4 others have preferred the instant revision. 

Facts giving rise to this revision  are that the appellants/complainants filed a complaint case in the District Forum, Ghaziabad on the ground that their mother Smt. Maharani Devi was the allottee of the flat no.205, Kamadgiri Tower, Ghaziabad and after her death they

(2)

became the owners as the respondent/OP no.1 committed deficiency in service in providing the possession of the flat and also charging service charge and the interest thereon etc. Hence, the complainant was filed against them. The respondent/OP filed their WS. The OP had raised issued regarding the maintainability of the complainant as the flat in question was sold out by the complainants on 24.1.2009 to one Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh whereas the complaint was filed on 11.5.2010 and hence, they were not the owners of the flat and consequently, they were not the consumers therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum has dismissed the complaint vide orders passed on 12.10.2011.

          Feeling aggrieved with this order, this revision has been filed by the revisionists/complainants.

          The main grounds of the revision are that the hearing was conducted by the President Shri A.K. Srivastava alone. However, the order has been signed by Smt. Kiran Shukla, member illegally therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on this ground itself.

Notice was issued to the respondents but none appeared from the side of the respondents. None appeared to argue the case.

The ld. Forum by the impugned order has dismissed the complaint of the revisionists/complainants on the ground that the flat in question has been sold out to Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh on 24.1.2009 and the complaint has been filed after a year and hence, the revisionists/ complainants did not have any authority to file the

(3)

complaint as after the sale of the flat no right remains with them with regard to the flat in question and hence, they do not remain consumers, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and accordingly, it was dismissed. The revisionists have filed the revision on the ground that the order in question was illegal as the hearing was done by only Shri A.K. Srivastava as president and Smt. Kiran Shukla has signed the order subsequently without any hearing. It is astonishing that they have not challenged the fact that they are still the consumers of the respondent/OP Ghaziabad Development Authority despite admittedly, selling of the flat in question to one Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh and Smt. Kamini Singh, as is evident from para 4 of the complaint. So now when the ownership of the flat in question does not remain with the complainants therefore, they do not obviously remain the consumers of the respondent/OP. Therefore, the ld. Forum had passed the orders absolutely correctly and the reason given in the revision that the hearing was conducted by the President alone is of no avail as the impugned order contains the signatures of the President as well as the member which shows that the President as well as the member conducted the proceedings and passed the impugned order. Besides, on merit, the impugned order has been passed rationally and there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in it. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

(4)

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.       

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                   (Vijai Varma)              (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                    Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4