IN THE STATE COMMISSION :DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                                                                 Date of Decision: 21.11.2014

First Appeal – 1032/2014

Rajeev Bansal (HUF),

B-60, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.

Through S.P.A.

Shri Anil Sharma

………Appellant

Vs

1. Octagon Builder & Promoters (P) Ltd.,

Regd. Off: 78, Hargobind Enclave,

Delhi-110092.

Also at:

D-3&4, Sector-10,

Noida-201301 (U.P.)

Also at:

H-99, Sector-63,

Noida-201309 (U.P.)

Also at:

H-218, Sector-63,

Noida.

1. Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal,

Executive Director,

Octagon Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd.,

Regd. Off: 78, Hargobind Enclave,

Delhi-110092.

Also at:

D-3&4, Sector-10,

Noida-201301 (U.P.)

Also at:

H-218, Sector-63,

Noida.

1. Madhuban Property,

311, Second Floor,

Jaipuria Plaza,

Sector-26,

Noida (U.P.)

……..Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. 1.     Appellant herein was a complainant before the District Forum who had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming the following reliefs:

1. Refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant towards booking of two flats and Rs.1,91,520/- paid towards first instalment of the two flats along with up to date interest on the said amounts at 24% per annum.

2.Pay pendent lite and future interest till the payment is made to the complainant by the opposite parties.

3. Pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the damages and harassment caused to the complainant.

4. Any other direction that this Hon’ble court may deem fit.

2.      Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint without hearing the appellant/complainant by a non-speaking order.  The Counsel for the appellant submits that if an opportunity of hearing is given, the appellant will satisfy the Ld. District Forum about having jurisdiction to hear the complaint of the appellant/complainant.

3.      The impugned order reads as under:

        “None present to press this complaint nor the    complainant has clarified regarding jurisdiction of this forum as to the maintainability of this complaint before it.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper form having jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue raised in the complaint.”

1.    The aforesaid order is a non-speaking order.  No reasoning is given as to why the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum (East).  Further no opportunity of hearing has been given to the complainant.  Considering the submissions made, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Ld. District Forum where the appellant/complainant shall appear on 7.1.15 and District Forum after considering the submissions made shall pass a fresh order.
2.    A copy of this order be sent to District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi for compliance.