ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/70/2018
(Against the order dated 12-03-2018 in Complaint Case No.
805/2017 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow )
- Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited
Through its Asstt. Director
YMCA Campus, 13 Rana Pratap Marg
Lucknow-226001
- Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited
Through its Director of Maintenance
Shushant Golf City, Sultanpur Road
Shopping Square, Sector-D
Lucknow-226030
...Revisionists
Vs.
01.District Consumer Disputes-
Redressal Forum Lucknow-II, U.P.
Through its Presiding Officer
- Paradise Crystal
Resident Welfare Association
E-106 Paradise Crystal
Sushant Golf City, Lucknow-226030
Through its President
...Opposite parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. MAHESH CHAND, MEMBER
For the Revisionist : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 05-04-2018
ORDER
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Sri Anurag Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared.
We have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused impugned order dated 12-03-2018 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 805/2017 Paradise Crystal, Resident Welfare Association V/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has passed interim order under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Above complaint was registered 01-12-2017 and notices were issued to
:2:
opposite parties fixing 05-02-2018 for written statement. Thereafter on 05-02-2018, 26-05-2018 has been fixed for written statement. In the meantime application for interim relief was moved by the complainant in said complaint whereupon the District Consumer Forum has passed impugned order dated 12-03-2018. Perusal of impugned order dated 12-03-2018 shows that it has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to revisionists/opposite parties.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the complaint filed by complainant/opposite party before District Consumer Forum is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. As such the District Consumer Forum cannot pass impugned interim order.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the complainant/opposite party is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and is not competent to file complaint.
Considering above facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionists it appears just that revision should be disposed of finally with liberty to the revisionists to raise their objection before District Consumer Forum and till disposal of objection filed by revisionists the operation of impugned order should be kept in abeyance.
In view of above present revision is disposed of finally with liberty to the revisionists to file their objection before District Consumer Forum. If the objection is filed by revisionists before District Consumer Forum within 30 days from today the District Consumer Forum shall pass appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties within 30 days and till disposal of revision the operation of impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( MAHESH CHAND )
MEMBER
Pnt.
