RAJ RAHUL CONTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT. LTD. vs LALIT KUMAR

BY this order we intend to dispose of both the above titled Revision Petitions which have been filed against the orders dated 15th April, 1991 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. In fact the State Commission has passed the main order in the Petitioners'' Appeal No. A-76 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission which has given rise to Revision Petition No. 99 of 1991. Other Appeal No. A-77ofl990 on the file of the State Commission and which was filed by the Petitioners in the above Revision Petition No. 104 of 1991 was disposed of by the said Commission by passing the following brief order: "The facts of the present case are similar to those of Case No. A-76/90 decided today. The observations in that case are fully applicable to this case. Consequently we partly accept the appeal, modify the order of the District Forum and direct the defendant to pay Rs. 43,365/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the dates the instalments were deposited by him till the date of payment of the amount to the complainant. No order as to costs."

As the two cases are similar, therefore, we have intended to dispose of both the Revision Petitions by this common order.

AS these are Revision Petitions it is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case as the question to be seen is whether the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that proper opportunity has not been given to the present Petitioners by the District Forum to file a counter and to present their case. After going through the records we find that the above argument has no force. The notice issued by the District Forum to the present Petitioners who were Opposite Parties in the complaint is dated 5th October, 1989. By this notice the Opposite parties were informed to attend the Court on 17th January, 1990 at 10.30 a.m. personally or through authorised representative with their reply. It is not the case of the present Petitioners that the notice was not received by them. The notice must have been received by them after the expiry of reasonable time from 5th October, 1989. It may be mentioned here that similar notice was issued to the Complainant and his Counsel stated before us that his client i.e. the Complainant had received the notice on 19th October, 1989. The learned Counsel for the present petitioners argued that the said notice is defective as vide Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, District Forum is required to refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the Forum and the notice gave a period of more than 30 days to the opposite parties i.e. the present Petitioners to file their version and thus there has been violation of the statutory provisions. We are of the opinion that the above violation of the statutory provisions is not of a such nature that would vitiate the proceedings before the District Forum. If the District Forum gave more than 30 days'' time to the Opposite Parties to file their version it erred in their favour and therefore, they have no cause of complaint. On 17th January, 1990 the Petitioners did not file their version and on the other hand requested for more time. The District Forum adjourned the case to 28th March, 1990 for filing the written statement. On that date also the Opposite Parties did not file any written statement though their representative Mr. Goswami appeared on their behalf. The plea taken before the District Forum by the present Petitioners was that on that day the lawyers were on strike and thus the written statement could not be filed. If the lawyers were on strike, one of the Directors of Company or their authorised representative could have filed the written statement which is said to be ready on that date as alleged in the application dated 7th April, 1990 filed by the Petitioners before the District Forum for giving them an opportunity for presenting their case. However, the District Forum could not take any action on that application as the case had already been decided by it on 28th March, 1990. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the order dated 17th January, 1990 is also against the statutory provisions because under Section 13(1) of the Act the District Forum could have extended the period not exceeding 15 days for filing their version and in the present case the District Forum gave a further period of more than two months for the purpose of filing the version. Again the District Forum erred to the benefit of the Petitioners and therefore, they have no right to complain against that order.

ALL these points were raised before the State Commission on behalf of the Petitioners in their appeals and those were overruled.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order of the District Forum is not based upon any evidence. This argument has no force. The order of the District Forum shows that the documents filed were perused by it. The evidence has also been considered by the State Commission and on consideration of it, both the appeals were dismissed on merits also. Therefore, it is futile to urge that the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are not based upon any evidence. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any force in the Revision Petitions and dismiss the same with costs which we assess at Rs. 1,500/- in each case.

A copy of this Order be placed on the file of Revision Petition No. 104 of 1992.