NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1689/2024

M/S OM SHIVAM BUILDCON PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SHANTANU SHARMA

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1689 OF 2024
(Against the Order dated 21/02/2022 in Appeal No. A/21/188 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
1. M/S OM SHIVAM BUILDCON PVT. LTD.
PLOT NO. 10, ROHERA ARCADE NMC HOUSE NO. 560, A/10, WARD NO. 5, AJNI SQUARE, WARDHA ROAD
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. KRISHNA
6/5, PWD, DEPUTY COLLECTOR BUILDING IN FRONT OF MARUTI TEMPLE, CHANDRAPUR, TAH, CHANDRAPUR
CHANDRAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. BINOY KUMAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV,MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :
MR. SIDDHARTH R. GUPTA, ADVOCATE (VC)
FOR THE RESPONDENT :
IN PERSON (VC)

Dated : 02 December 2024
ORDER

        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short ‘State Commission’) dated 22.03.2024 and 21.02.2022 which had dismissed his Review Application and Appeal respectively on the grounds of default and non-deposit of 50% of the amount for filing of the Appeal. 

          He further submitted that the Additional Nagpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘District Commission’) by their Order dated 07.06.2021 had decided the matter ex-parte.  Therefore, the Opposite Party has not been heard at all and it would be in the interest of justice that he be given an opportunity to be heard on merits. 

          This is a Complaint filed by the Respondent on 19.01.2021.  The Order was passed by the District Commission on 07.06.2021.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite party submitted that this was Covid time.  However, it is also a fact that when the notice was issued to the Opposite Party, the same was returned with remarks as ‘unclaimed’.  Therefore, evidently, the fault lies with the Respondent/Opposite Party as per the District Commission’s Order.

          Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the record.

          It is a fact that the Opposite Party has not been heard at all on merits before either the District Commission or the State Commission.  Considering that the matter has not been heard at all by the State Commission, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the State Commission which shall hear the same on merits within not more than six months considering that the Complaint is of 2021 and as per oral undertaking by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party that he is ready to argue on the day as decided by the State Commission without seeking any adjournment subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the legal aid A/c of the State Commission and Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Orders of the State Commission dated 21.02.2022 and 22.03.2024 are set aside.

          Parties to appear before the State Commission on 22.01.2025.

          The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.

 
............................
BINOY KUMAR
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
............................J
SAROJ YADAV
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.