MS. DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

This Review Application has been filed by the Opposite Party seeking review of the order dated 12.08.2021.

2.      The background of the case is that the present Complaint No.760 of 2019 was pending for final arguments when after the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Applicant/Opposite Party filed an Application being IA No.51 of 2021 on the ground that this Commission ceases to have Pecuniary Jurisdiction and the matter be sent to the Tribunal of Pecuniary Jurisdiction.  Subsequently, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Neena Aneja And Anr. Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 225” has put the issue of Jurisdiction in the cases pending before the Benches prior to coming into force of the new Act at rest and held that such Complaints shall continue before this Commission.  Therefore, the IA No.51 of 2021 of the Applicant/Opposite Party has now become infructuous.  Since the matter was already listed for final arguments, this Commission expected that the parties shall address the arguments.  It is also apparent that the Opposite Party had attended the proceedings of this Commission in several other matters listed on that day and therefore, they had the link to join the hearing in this case as well.  When the Commission did not find the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party present to argue the matter, on the insistence of the learned Counsel for the Complainant, proceeded to hear the final arguments and reserved the matter.  The Complaint was reserved for order on 02.07.2021 and the final order was pronounced on 12.08.2021. 

3.      It is these two orders which have been challenged before us by the Applicant/Opposite Party alleging that since the order had been passed without hearing the Opposite Party, injustice has been caused to them.  It is also alleged that the Opposite Party did not have the link and therefore, could not attend the proceedings in this matter.  It is further argued that there is a letter dated 18.04.2021 of the Registry of this Commission whereby the Registry was required to give at least two weeks’ prior intimation to the counsels for the parties before listing of any matter for final hearing.  It is submitted that this was not done in the present case and therefore, they were not aware that the matter was listed for that date.  It is also argued that although, the matter has been disposed of in terms of the decision in “Anish Singhal Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., CC No.2194 of 2016” on the ground that it is a covered case, it in fact is not a covered case.  On these contentions and submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and they be given an opportunity of being heard.

4.      This Review Application has strongly been contested on behalf of the Complainants.  They have filed their reply.  It is contended and argued that the Application has no basis and that the conduct of Opposite Party shows that all the methods for getting the disposal of the matter delayed had been adopted by the Opposite Party.  It is submitted that on 16.12.2020, this Commission had given one final opportunity to the Opposite Party for filing its evidence by way of affidavit and written synopsises.  It was also ordered that the matter be listed for 07.01.2021 for final arguments.  It is submitted that the matter was a covered matter by “Anish Singhal Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., CC No.2194 of 2016”.  It is further submitted that the Opposite Party with the sole intention to delay the adjudication of this Complaint filed the Application challenging the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission in terms of the amended Consumer Protection Act.  It is submitted that since this matter is no longer res integra in terms of Neena Aneja’s case (supra), the Application had become infructuous and only the final arguments were left to be addressed.  The matter was listed for final arguments on 20.04.2021.  It is further submitted that the Opposite Party had appeared in number of cases on 02.07.2021 on which date the matter was listed for final arguments but when this matter was called for hearing, nobody had appeared on their behalf.  It is further submitted that the Opposite Party had the link to connect themselves to this Commission through Video Conferencing but had intentionally not connected itself when the matter was called for hearing.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party, although had the time to challenge the order dated 02.07.2021 by which this Commission had reserved the matter for pronouncement but they did not challenge the same and even after the order was pronounced on 12.08.2021, no action was taken by the Opposite Party.  It is submitted that the sole intention of the Opposite Party had been to delay the adjudication/disposal of this matter.

5.      We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.      It is not a disputed fact that on 02.07.2021, this matter was listed for final hearing.  It is not disputed that the Opposite Party had attended the proceedings before this Commission on that date in several other matters and therefore, they had the link to connect to this Commission through Video Conference but still they did not connect themselves to attend the proceedings of this Commission in this matter.  Since they had received the cause list of all the matters listed for that date, the Opposite Party was very well aware that this matter is listed for final arguments on that day, yet they chose not to appear.  If the Opposite Party was not prepared with the arguments and for some reason was unable to argue the matter, they ought to have appeared and made a submission to this effect.  The conduct of the Opposite Party whereby they chose not to attend the proceedings in this case goes to show that their non-appearance had been intentional with sole object to delay the adjudication of this matter.  Their contention that the matter was listed for IA No.51 of 2021 is baseless because that IA had automatically become infructuous in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neena Aneja’s case (supra).  This Commission proceeded to hear the arguments since the Complainant had submitted that it is a covered case.  After hearing the arguments, the matter was reserved for order. 

7.      Since the Opposite Party was aware of the pendency of this case before this Commission on that date, it was their duty to find out as to what had happened in this case on that date and what order had been passed.  The Opposite Party, however, did not bother to know about this matter.  Although, the matter was reserved and remained pending for 1½ months before final order was pronounced, they did not bother to file an appropriate application seeking permission to argue the matter.  Their silence clearly shows that they were waiting for the final order to be passed and then move an application seeking recall of the final order, and thereby, further delay the disposal of the Complaint.  None of the contentions raised in the Application seems to be bonafide.  No grounds for review exist.  We found no merit in the present Review Application.  The Review Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.