Media Video Ltd. vs Sanjeet Kumar

THESE revision petitions involve similar question of law; hence, decided by common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur (in short, ( ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No.1499 of 2012 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjeet Kumar, Appeal No.99 of 2013 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Asha, Appeal No.101 of 2013 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.S. Saini and Appeal No.104 of 2013 - Media VedioLtd. & Ors. Vs. Karam Singh by which, while dismissing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaints were upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/respondents booked flat with OP/petitioner and made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ -. OP assured to handover the possession of the flat within one and half to two years. Possession of flat has not been handed over within stipulated period. Complainant filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer to refund deposited amount with interest. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant has not paid even a single installment except the earnest money despite several notices, so, earnest money has been forfeited. It was further submitted that District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund deposited amount with 6% p.a. interest and awarded Rs.5,000/ - as costs. Appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 26.8.2013 against which, revision petitions were filed by the petitioner and this Commission vide order dated 12.2.2014 allowed revision petitions and remanded the matter back to the learned State Commission to decide appeals by speaking order. Learned State Commission vide impugned order again dismissed appeals against which these revision petitions have been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of directions of this Commission, learned State Commission again passednon -speaking order; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it would be better to decide revision petitions on merits instead of remanding the matters back to the learned State commission.

THIS Commission vide order dated 12.2.2014 remanded the matters back to learned State Commission with the directions to decide appeals by speaking order, but again appeals have been decided without dealing any grounds raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal. Learned State Commission ought to have complied with directions of this Commission and should have decided appeals on merits instead of repeating almost same order and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that revision petitions may be decided on merits by this Commission. I am of the view that until and unless appeals are decided on merits by a speaking order by Appellate Court, this Commission should not act as Appellate Court. This Commission should not decide revision petitions on merits, but should remand the matters back to the learned State Commission for deciding appeals by speaking order.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed and impugned order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the State Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipurin Appeal No.1499 of 2012 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjeet Kumar, Appeal No.99 of 2013 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Asha, Appeal No.101 of 2013 - Media Vedio Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.S. Saini and Appeal No.104 of 2013 - Media VedioLtd. & Ors. Vs. Karam Singh are set aside and matters are remanded back to learned State Commission to decide them afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 18.12.2014.