Urban Improvement Trust Alwar vs Phool Singh Vijay

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1062/2011 - Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. Vs. PhoolSingh Vijay by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased plot No. 108 for a sum of Rs.3,77,837/ - from OP/petitioner on 10.3.2003 and allotment letter was issued in his favour on 1.4.2003. Possession of plot was not given to the complainant for long time. Complainant requested OP to execute lease deed, but it was not executed and OP demanded Rs.17,274/ - as penalty for non -construction of the house for long time. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.17,274/ - penalty amount deposited by the complainant and further allowed Rs.3,000/ - as compensation for mental agony. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 6.2.2012. Revision petition filed by OP was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 25.4.2013 and matter was remanded back with directions to the State Commission for deciding appeal by speaking order. Learned State Commission vide order dated 28.5.2013 again decided appeal without any speaking order and this Commission vide order dated 9.12.2013 in R.P. No. 3091 of 2013 - UIT Vs. Phool Singh Vijay again set aside order of State Commission and remanded the matter back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order. Learned State Commission vide impugned order again dismissed appeal against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD leaned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission in the absence of parties again dismissed appeal without any speaking order and not complied with the directions of this Commission; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the State Commission with direction to decide appeal by speaking order.

PERUSAL of record reveals that inspite of repeated directions by this Commission vide order dated 25.4.2013 and 9.12.2013, learned State Commission has not decided appeal by speaking order and again by impugned order decided appeal and flouted directions of this Commission which is not proper on the part of State Commission. Learned State Commission should have followed directions given by this Commission and should have decided appeal by speaking order. Learned State Commission decided this appeal again in the absence of parties and that too by non -speaking order.

IN such circumstances, there is no alternate except to allow revision petition and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding it by speaking order.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned orderdated28.7.2014 passed by the State Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1062/2011 - Urban Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Phool Singh Vijay is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeal by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, as directed by earlier orders referred above.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 04.01.2015.