M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs RAJ KUMARI W/O DHARAM PAL

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.12.2012 & 16.04.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 672 of 2012 -TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Raj Kumari by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent booked residential plot by paying booking amount of Rs.5,95,000/- and OP/petitioner allotted Plot No. K-69, for consideration of Rs. 27,12,500/- Complainant deposited total Rs.24,46,500/- towards installments and EDC charges and complainant was issued letter dated 20.09.2006 showing NIL balance. Complainant submitted documents for execution of buyers'' agreement, but complainant received letter for demand of Rs.15,10,000/- despite depositing Rs.24,46,500/- and possession of plot was not delivered to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and denied that there was no balance outstanding against the complainant. It was further submitted that plot of 350 sq. yds. was allotted and not of 250 sq. yds. and rate of 5250 per sq. yds. was also denied. It was further submitted that complainant stopped payment of installment without any cause, so, his allotment was cancelled. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot plot measuring 350 sq. yds. at Rs.7750/- per sq. yds. with liberty to OP to recover Rs.2,66,000/- and EDC charges and complainant was allowed to get 9% p.a. interest on deposited amount till possession is delivered. Both parties preferred appeal and Appeal No. 172/2012 filed by complaint was dismissed by order dated 11.5.2012, so, appeal of OP was dismissed by impugned order and review petition was dismissed by impugned order dated 16.4.2013 against which, this revision petition has been file along with application for condonation of delay.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner filed application for condonation of delay of 154 days and submitted that impugned order dated 16.4.2013 was forwarded to petitioner''s HO and documents were sent for Counsel for drafting revision petition who asked for some more documents. It was further submitted that Legal Officer resigned on 15.7.2013 and his Associate also left office in August, 2013, so, revision petition could not be finalized and delay occurred in filing revision petition which may be condoned. As per office report, there is delay of 135 days in filing revision petition, but as concerned Law Officer In charge left office of petitioner on account of which delay occasioned and as impugned order is prima facie wrong, I deem it appropriate to condone delay subject to payment of cost and consequently application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of Cost of Rs.5,000/- to respondent and delay stands condoned.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal only on the basis of dismissal of appeal filed by complainant, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Perusal of record reveals that appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 11.5.2012. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by impugned order with following observations: "It has been brought to our notice that cross appeal No. 172 of 2011 titled "Raj Kumar Vs. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." arising out of the same impugned order has already been dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 11.5.2012 and the impugned order under challenge in this appeal has already been upheld. After upholding the impugned order in the cross appeal, we are left with no option, but to dispose of this appeal on the same terms as of the order dated 11.5.2012."

Merely because appeal filed by complainant was dismissed, appeal filed by OP was not liable to be dismissed, but should have been decided on merits. Merely because complainant''s appeal was dismissed, it cannot be held that order passed by For a below cannot be challenged by OP. OP has every right to challenge order passed by Fora below and learned State Commission is bound to decide appeal on merits and should not have been dismissed merely because cross-appeal filed by complainant stood already dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that District forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as tentative cost of the plot was Rs.27,12,500/-. I need not to consider this aspect at this stage as impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding appeal on merits.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 6.12.2012 passed by the Commission in Appeal No. 672 of 2012 -TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Raj Kumari is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 5.1.2016 and petitioner is directed to make payment of cost on or before this date to respondent.