RAVINDRA TARACHAND MALVE vs VANDANA MANOHAR DICHOLKAR & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.10.2010, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. A/09/914/2015, "Shashikant Umarkant Malve & Anr. vs. Vandana Manohar Dicholkar & Ors.", vide which, the said appeal was partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was modified to say that the appellant-1/OP-1 shall not have any liability to make payment to the complainant as ordered by the District Forum.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1, Vandana Manohar Dicholkar was allotted a plot by the Saraswati Cooperative Housing Society Limited, of which the opposite parties are stated to be the promoters. Alleging that the construction work could not be completed in time as stipulated in the agreement, the complainant claimed refund of the amount in question. The District Forum accepted the contention of the complainant and directed refund of the amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. and the opposite parties (OP 1 to 4) were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount alongwith compensation of 50,000/- and cost of 1000/-. On appeal before the State Commission by the petitioner/OP-4 and the OP-1/respondent No.4, the said order was modified vide impugned order dated 22.10.2010, saying that OP-1/respondent No. 4 Shashikant Umakant Malve shall not be liable to make payment to the complainant. The petitioner/OP-4 has challenged the said order in the present revision petition.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-4 pointed out that there was another revision petition No. 1204/2011 filed before this Commission by OP-2/respondent No.2 Vishnu Laxman Surve, in which the following order was passed by this Commission on 29.07.2015:

"By way of this revision petition, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 26.10.2010 vide which appeal filed by him before State Commission was dismissed in default.

The impugned order read as under:

"26th October, 2010

-:ORDER SHEET:-

This appeal already stood dismissed for default by this Commission by order dated 16.06.2010. Therefore, this appeal be struck off from the file and admittedly, the costs as per conditional order dated 02.08.2010 in Misc. Application No.363/2010 are not paid and therefore restoration is not allowed."

Learned counsel for respondent no.4 states that there is no objection, if the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh after hearing all the parties in accordance with provisions of law subject to cost.

In view of above statement given by learned counsel for respondent no.4, the present revision petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Consequently, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh after hearing all the parties, in accordance with provisions of law.

Cost be deposited by the petitioner by way of demand draft in favour of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission, within four weeks.

The State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of this order.

Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 08.09.2015.

Dasti to both the Parties. "

Learned counsel argued that by virtue of the above order dated 29.07.2015, the State Commission had been directed to decide the appeal afresh, after hearing all the parties in accordance with law. It was evident, therefore, that the order challenged in the present revision petition is already being re-examined as per the directions given vide order dated 29.07.2015. The present revision petition should, therefore, be allowed and the case be remanded to the State Commission for taking a decision afresh.

After examining the material on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the State Commission has already been directed to re-adjudicate the matter and take a fresh decision after hearing the concerned parties. In view of this position, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh after giving due opportunity to all the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.