CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. vs SUMANT KUMAR JHA & ANR.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant states that since Respondent No.2 was not present at the time when the order impugned in the present Appeal was passed, she may be permitted to drop the said Respondent from the array of parties'' name. Ordered accordingly at the risk of the Appellant.

This First Appeal, by a real estate developer, namely, Classic Developers Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in CC/15/304. By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed ex parte proceedings against the Appellant as, despite service of notice, they had remained unrepresented on 28.9.2015 as well as on the date when the impugned order was passed.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has vehemently submitted that though in its order dated 28.9.2015, the State Commission has recorded its satisfaction that the notices are duly served on the Opposite Party, yet the Appellant still maintains that no such notice for the said date had been received by them and therefore, the State Commission erred in passing the order impugned in this Appeal. It is also urged that in view of the fact that a full ''Occupation Certificate'' had already been obtained by the Appellant from Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika as far back as on 10.9.2014, there was no reason for the Appellant to avoid appearance before the State Commission and contest the Complaint, more so, when against the total cost of 28,00,000/- for the residential flat in question, the Complainant had paid only a paltry sum of 5,60,000/-, i.e., 20% of the purchase price. It is also submitted that though the Appellant did not get an opportunity to file its Written Version but on Complainant''s own showing, he did receive several notices from the Appellant, demanding payment of the amount due in terms of the Agreement dated 27.6.2011, but admittedly the same was not paid.

Per contra , Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant, while supporting the impugned order, has placed before us the service report submitted by the Postal Authorities, to bring home the point that notice in the Complaint issued by the State Commission on 22.8.2015 had actually been served on the Appellant on 24.8.2015.

Having bestowed our consideration to the facts at hand and bearing in mind the afore-stated submissions, we are of the opinion that the Appellant has made-out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal as also for grant of an opportunity to have its say in the Complaint.

Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and direct that if the Appellant files its Written Version in the Complaint within four weeks from today, the same shall be taken into consideration, subject to the Appellant paying to the Complainant costs of 20,000/- before the State Commission. In making the afore-noted directions, we have borne in mind the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its recent order dated 10.2.2017, in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Dy. No.2365/2017. It will be open to the Complainant to file rejoinder, if so advised. Thereafter, the parties shall file their respective evidence by way of affidavits, as may be directed by the State Commission. The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.3.2017 for further proceedings, the date already fixed in the Complaint. Since the Complaint was filed in the year 2015, we expect and hope that the State Commission shall expedite the final disposal of the Complaint. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.