Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/603/2017

Unitech Ltd.through its Authorized Signatory Mohit Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amarnath Bhargava - Opp.Party(s)

Umang Gupta

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 603 /2017

 

Unitech ltd., regd.office at Basement 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

Vs.

Amarnath Bhargava, 15/155 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 15.9.2017

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Umang Gupta counsel for the appellant

Mr.K.B.Agarwal counsel for respondent no. 1

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 22.9.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the

2

 

Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 214 days. The contention of the appellant is that no opportunity of hearing was allowed to him. He could know about the impugned judgment only on 4.3.2017. Copy was applied on 19.4.2017 and the appeal is filed.

 

A bare consideration of the contentions lodged in the application are not reasonable as the appellant could know about the order as per his own contention on 4.3.2017 but this appeal has been filed on 26.5.2017 with delay of about three months and even copy was applied on 19.4.2017 without no justification.

 

Further it has not been stated by the appellant that notices were not served on him. Only this much has been said that opportunity of hearing was not allowed to him and order of the Forum below goes to show that inspite of the service the appellant did not appear before the Forum below and contention of the respondent is that the appellants were served by registered post on his true address and there is legal presumption about the service of registered post. This appeal has been filed with the same address which was narrated before the Forum below and appellant has also submitted affidavit

3

 

with the same address hence, it cannot be accepted that the notices were not served on the appellant and inspite of the service of notice he did not appear before the Forum below and this appeal has also been filed with delay of 214 days.

 

The appellant has relied upon III (2010) CPJ 244 (RC) Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar where on the facts of the case the impugned order was passed but here in the present case no explanation has been submitted for inordinate delay and looking at the facts that special provision for limitation are provided under the C.P.Act, the application deserves to be dismissed.

 

Merit has also been considered. Inspite of the maturity of fixed deposit the money was not paid to the consumer hence, the Forum below has rightly passed the impugned order.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed on merits and limitation.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm