1.       This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.07.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 33 of 2016.

Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned proxy counsel is present for the appellant (the ‘complainant’). Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, learned counsel is present for the respondent (the ‘builder co.’).

2.       A perusal of the record shows that the matter relates to a builder – buyer dispute. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the builder co. and has essentially prayed for refund of his deposited amount along with interest / compensation. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 25.07.2018 has dismissed the complaint in default. The present appeal seeks restoration of the case before the State Commission.

3.       In the absence of the learned counsel for the complainant, learned proxy counsel appearing on his behalf requests for an adjournment.

4.       Ordinarily we do not grudge accommodating the learned counsel and avoid declining such request but this is not a matter in which any complex or complicated question of law or fact is involved at all. This is a simple matter of dismissal of the case by the forum below for reason of non-appearance of the complainant. It is relevant that the Act 1986 is for “better protection of the interests of the consumers”, its Statement of Objects & Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. The ideal normative period to decide an appeal is 90 days of its admission (Section 19A of the Act 1986; Section 52 of the Act 2019). The present appeal was filed on 18.02.2019 and notice was ordered to be issued on 26.08.2019, almost 3 ½ years back. The request for adjournment is politely declined, and we are hereinafter deciding the case on the basis of the record and by hearing the learned counsel present.

5.       As already stated above, vide its Order of 25.07.2018 the State Commission has dismissed the complaint in default in the absence of the complainant. The said Order is reproduced below for reference:

25.07.2018

Neither the advocate for the Complainant nor the Complainant present. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is being dismissed in default. The order is placed in the file and file be consigned to the record room

6.       Learned counsel for the respondent, in his submissions, opposes restoration of the case. 

7.       However, having objectively and impartially considered the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances as are being borne out by the record, it is deemed to be just and conscionable that opportunity be provided to the complainant to get the matter adjudicated on merit before the State Commission.

We are consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute is as yet to be adjudicated on merit and we do not wish to in any manner colour the vision of the forum below.

8.       The Order dated 25.07.2018 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission.

The complainant is sternly advised to conduct his case properly with due diligence before the State Commission.

The complainant and the builder co. are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.02.2023.

The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the complaint on merit in accordance with the law.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel within three days. It is further requested to most immediately send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.