IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Hearing: 14.10.2020 

Date of Decision: 19.10.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO. 84/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S M2K INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

E-3/29, Harsha Bhawan,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001 ….Appellant

VERSUS

DR. KANIKA

W/o Shiv Kumar

R/o H.No. 22A, Sector-15A

Hissar, Haryana-125004....Respondent

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                        Yes

Present:       Sh. Kaushal Budhia, Counsel for the appellant

                   Sh. J.P. Sharma, Counsel for the respondent

ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           The order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, District New Delhi in CC/585/12 in the matter of Dr. (Mrs.) Kanika versus M/s M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., directing the OP to refund Rs. 4,40,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest from date of deposit till realisation within 30 days failing which 12% interest would be charged and also awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, unfair trade practice and Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses, has been assailed before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, by M/s M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for short appellant against Dr. Kanika w/o Shiv Kumar, resident of Haryana, hereinafter referred to as respondents alleging that the order has been passed without due notice to them.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.           The complainant had booked a flat in their upcoming project of the OPs at “M2K Country Height”, Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari, Haryana depositing initial payment of Rs. 3 lakhs vide cheque no. 814346 dated 07.12.2006 and thereafter further payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- was also made on 10.03.2007 vide cheque no. 814350 which means total amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- was paid and acknowledged. But the project in question was not complete. Several visits at site made to persuade the OPs to complete the project could bring out no difference. Ultimately complaint was filed before the District Forum and notice was issued and served.
4.           The OP/appellant not having appeared before the District Forum despite service of notice were proceeded ex-parte on 31.10.2012 and two years after this order the complaint was decided on 11.12.2014 with the direction to refund with interest.
5.           The appeal has been filed assailing the said order with the prayer that the order be set aside and the complaint be remanded for fresh adjudication giving him opportunity to submit his version. I have perused the records of the case.
6.           The service was complete but Ops not appearing were proceeded ex-parte on 31.10.2012. No steps were taken by the complainant to assail the ex-parte order. It is only when the final disposal was done they preferred an appeal. This cannot be accepted. It appears that filing of the appeal is an afterthought. They having not challenged the order dated 31.10.2012 proceeding ex-parte as against them are now estopped from raising the issue. Infact it is too late in the day to agitate this issue regarding assailing the final order. If the cause passing of ex-parte order was not assailed, then the consequence to follow passing of final order will remain unassailable. In this view of the matter no ground exists to interfere with the orders of the District Forum. No order as to cost.
7.           Ordered accordingly leaving the parties to bear the cost.  
8.           A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information.
9.           File be consigned to records.

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

MEMBER

PRONOUNCED ON

19.10.2020

sl