(Delivered on   21/04/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Petitioner Mr. Niraj Dambhare  has  preferred  the present  Revision Petition feeling aggrieved  by the order dated  02/12/2021 passed by  the  learned  Additional District Consumer  Commission , Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 131/2021 whereby the learned  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur passed an order  directing the  complaint  to proceed exparte against the present  petitioner.

2.         Short facts leading to  filing of  the present  revision petition are that ,

            Respondent No. 1 – Mr. Chandrashekar Yadavrao Khapre  was the original complainant and petitioner and respondent No. 2 had developed the land  situated at Mouza- Harishchandra (Vela), Tahsil Nagpur (Gramin), District Nagpur bearing Khasra No. 171/2 and demarcated the plots over it. The respondent No. 1 contended that he had entered in to an agreement to purchase the plot No. 19  & 20 having area admeasuring 1742.65 Sq. fts.  and 1650.80 Sq. fts.  at the rate of Rs. 23/- and  Rs. 33/- per sq. ft. The respondent No. 1/complainant had also paid Rs. 3000/- & Rs.  5,000/- as an earnest amount in cash and remaining amount of Rs. 37,081/- and Rs. 31,300/-  were to be paid by installment of Rs. 618/- and Rs. 522/- per month.  The respondent No. 1/complainant had also paid the entire amount but sale deed was not executed. The respondent No. 1/complainant then lodged the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the present petitioner and respondent No. 2 regarding deficiency in service.

3.         The learned  Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur thereafter  issued notice to the present  petitioner  and respondent No. 2 but the same was avoided  by  on one   or other pretext and so complaint  proceeded  exparte against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 02/12/2021

4.         It is submitted by Mr. Girish Dube, learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur had issued  the notice to the petitioner  at wrong address  of the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that he was never residing at the address given by the respondent No. 1 in the complaint but this fact was not taken in to consideration at all. The petitioner has also contended that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1  was filed after the period of 19 years and so hopelessly barred by limitation.  It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner  that  no proper steps   were taken  by the respondent No. 1 to serve the petitioner and   in an erroneous manner public notice  came to be issued  though  address given  in the complaint  was wrong address. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner  that  the present  petitioner  was denied  the opportunity  to  file  written version  and to taken several pleas  to defend him. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner serious prejudice is likely to be caused in case impugned order dated 02/12/2021 is not set aside and opportunity  is not granted to the petitioner  to file written version.

5          We have also heard Mr. Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has strongly rebutted the contentions advanced by the petitioner.  Mr. Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has also denied that the petitioner was not residing at the address given in the complaint and has  supported the  order. 

6.         We have gone through  the record as well as address given by the  petitioner in the memo of  revision which shows that  the address of the petitioner  Plot No. 4, Konark Colony, Beas Road, Nagpur which is not the address given  in the Consumer Complaint filed by the respondent No. 1.

7.         During the course of argument the learned advocate for the respondent has also submitted that the matter is now posted for judgment on 24/03/2022. However,  looking to the submissions made by Mr. Girish Dube, learned advocate for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that  due opportunity  needs to be granted to the petitioner to defend  itself  in the Consumer Complaint filed by the respondent No. 1  on all aspects and  also to put up his defence  by filing written version on record.  However, it is clear that  the petitioner  has avoided service of notice on several dates and therefore we feel that  suitable costs needs to be saddled  upon the petitioner while giving  him opportunity  to file  his  written version on record.

8.         In the light of aforesaid  facts, we are of the view that  order passed  by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur  on 02/12/2021 needs to be set aside  and petitioner  needs to be given  opportunity  to file his written version subject to  cost  to be paid to the respondent No. 1. Accordingly,  we hereby allowed the revision  petition and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Revision Petitioner  is hereby allowed.

ii.          Order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur dated 02/12/2021 in Consumer Complaint No. 131/2021 is hereby set aside subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid  to the respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of order.

iii.         Petitioner  is  permitted to file written version  within a period of 15 days on receipt  of order .

iv.        The learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur is hereby  directed to  decide the  complaint afresh after taking the written version  on record as expeditiously  as possible.