By this order we propose to dispose of the above referred revision petitions against impugned orders of the State Commission respectively dated 31.12.2005 involving similar question of law and facts.

2.         Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the above petitions are that the petitioners were allotted housing units under a scheme to rehabilitate the displaced persons who had settled at Nala Road.  The petitioners pursuant to the scheme applied for allotment of residential unit and vacated their premises at Nala Road.  Case of the petitioners in their respective complaints is that though they had paid the consideration amount to the opposite party, the possession of the residential units was not given at the time and ultimately when the possession was given, the construction of residential units was sub-standard.  That the opposite party  had even reduced the plinth area of the respective units and arbitrarily enhanced the cost of the units.  Claiming this to be the deficiency in service, respective petitioners filed consumer complaints before the District Forum. 

3.         The District Forum after serving notice on the opposite party and hearing the parties, allowed the respective complaints and awarded compensation to the respective petitioners.  The cost of litigation was also awarded to the petitioners / complainants.

4.         Feeling aggrieved by the paltry compensation awarded by the consumer fora, respective complainants filed separate appeals before the State Commission Cuttack, Orissa. The State Commission dismissed the respective appeals filed by the complainants vide separate similar orders. For the sake of convenience, the order passed in C.D. Appeal No.685/02 in the matter of petitioner Badrun Nisa is reproduced thus:

“The appellant challenges the order dated 28.8.2002 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh – II at Rourkela in C.D. Case No.902 of 2000 wherein a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses was ordered to be paid to him and all other reliefs claimed were turned down.

In a similar case, (C.D. Case no.179 of 2002), the complainant therein, namely, Sheikh Mustaque preferred C.D. Appeal no.228 of 2004 before this Commission wherein the appeal was dismissed and the award of the District Forum was confirmed. In another similar case (C.D. Case no.182 of 2002) Sami Ashraf, the complainant therein being aggrieved with the order of the learned District Forum preferred C.D. Appeal no.230 of 2004 before this Commission, wherein the appeal was dismissed on 19.8.2010 and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The said order was challenged by the complainant – Sami Ashraf before the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P No.4137 of 2010 which on being heard was allowed on 21.7.2011 and the order of this Commission was set aside and that of the District Forum was restored.

Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to allow this appeal and as such, the same stands dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 28.8.2002 passed in C.D. Case no.902 of 2000 is confirmed.

Records received from the District Forum, Sundargarh-II at Rourkela be sent back forthwith.”

5.         Learned Shri Arunav Patnaik and Ms. Shivani Tandon Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners have contended that the impugned orders of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity as the State Commission without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioners dismissed the respective appeals.  In the light of the decision dated 21.07.2011 of the National Commission in RP No. 4137/2010 titled Sami Ashraf vs. Rourkela Development Authority, it is contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Sami Ashraf case is distinguishable on facts.  Thus, learned counsel have urged us to accept the revision petitions and remand the matters back to the State Commission for deciding the respective appeals on merits in the light of the grounds on which the orders of the District Forum has been challenged.

6.         Shri Manoj Kumar Dash- Legal Assistant of the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and pressed for dismissal of the revision petition.

7.         On perusal of record, we tend to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.  On reading of the impugned order reproduced above, it is clear that the State Commission instead of addressing to the pleas taken by the respective petitioners in their appeals has proceeded to dismiss the appeals of the petitioners on the strength of judgment of the National Commission in Shami Ashraf’s case.   The State Commission has failed to appreciate that Sami Ashraf’s case was decided by the National Commission on the basis of its own peculiar facts and the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts.  On perusal of the above noted judgment of the National Commission, we find that in the said case, order of the State Commission was set aside for the reason that State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by Shami Ashraf seeking modification of the order of the District Forum without there being any appeal by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum.  In the instant matters, revision petitioners had sought had sought modification of the order of the District Forum which prayer of the petitioners have not been decided by the State Commission.  The State Commission has not even bothered to refer to the facts of the respective cases or the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioners as also their prayers.  The State Commission by failing to address to the pleas of the petitioners has committed a grave illegality inasmuch as failing to exercise the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the appeal.  Thus in our view, the impugned orders are not sustainable.  Accordingly, the revision petitions are accepted.  Impugned orders are set aside and matters are remanded back to the State Commission with the direction to decide the respective appeals on merits after hearing the parties.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.09.2013.  No orders as to costs.