Delhi

StateCommission

A/519/2017

PAWAN MALHOTRA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANKIT BHATNAGAR

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHIs

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

 

 

First Appeal No. 519/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 23.05.2017 passed in Complainant Case No.1784/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi)

 

 

Shri Pawan Malhotra & Anr.                                                          … Appellants

Versus

 

Emaar MGF Land Limited & Ors.                                              … Respondents

 

 

BEFORE:

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

For the Appellants:	Mr. Ankit Bhatnagar, Counsel for the Complainant.
For the Respondents :	Mr. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent.

 

Dated: 23^rd August, 2018

 

 

ORDER

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

                

                 By way of this appeal prayer is made for re-calling of the impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi in CC No.1784/2008 by which complaint was dismissed for non-appearance.

                 It is stated that the aforesaid complaint was pending before the district Forum and on 22.02.2015 after hearing arguments it was reserved for orders. It is stated that thereafter no order was passed and on 23.05.2017 the matter has been dismissed for non-appearance. It is stated that after reserving the matter the earlier President had retired and the new President had not taken note of the fact that no notice was issued to the appellant/complainant for re-arguments.

                 Nothing contrary is pointed out by respondent/OP.

                 We had called for the records of the District Forum and perused the same. It shows that the matter was reserved for orders on 22.02.2015. Thereafter the file was taken up again by the President on the ground that the matter requires re-arguments, but there is nothing on record to show that notice was served upon the appellant/complainant for re-hearing. Ld. District Forum has also not observed in the impugned order as to whether the appellant/complainant was served or not. Ld. District Forum before passing the impugned order ought to have seen the record, whether the appellant/complainant was served or not.

                 In these circumstances, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh on merits after hearing both the parties.

                 Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 22.10.2018. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 

                 A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rule. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room. Record of the District Forum be also returned forthwith.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri