NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2629/2006

M/S.ANSAL PROPERTIES IMDUSTRIES LTD.& ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.K.JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARVIND NAYAR

02 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 17/07/2006 in Appeal No. 242/2006 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. M/S.ANSAL PROPERTIES IMDUSTRIES LTD.& ANR.115, ANSAL BHAWAN 16, K,G, MARG, NEW DELHI - ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. G.K.JAINS/O, LATE SH, R,K , JAIN 7-A /2, RAJAPUTR, ROAD, DELHI - ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. ARVIND NAYAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard counsel for the parties. The State Commission disposed of the appeal without issuing notice to the Respondent/Petitioner before us which is clear from the first paragraph of the impugned order. This shows that even the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the State Commission in as much as no adverse order can be passed without hearing the party. Admittedly, an application had been filed by the appellant before the State Commission for condonation of delay. Surprisingly, there is absolutely no reference in the impugned order of the State Commission either about the said application or condoning the delay. The procedure followed by the State Commission in disposing the appeal is totally illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, on account of which, the order of the State Commission remanding the matter to the District Forum is required to be set aside. Condonation of delay was required to be examined in the light of the fact that initially the complaint filed by the Complainant had been dismissed and the District Forum observed that the Complainant, if so advised, may seek redressal from a court of competent civil law or from any other forum and in that event the time spent by the Complainant in pursuing the proceedings before the Forum may be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. The Complainant had approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Thereafter, the Complainant had filed appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the Consumer Forum dated 6.5.2003 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. In view of this, while allowing the revision, we are remanding the matter to the State Commission to decide the issue of condonation of delay and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the State Commission in taking decision on issue of condonation of delay. Revision petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Since the matter is old, the parties shall appear before the State Commission on 28.9.2010 and take the date for arguments.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER