URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Gupta S/O Sh Subhash Gupta

THESE revision petitions arise out of the identical order of learned State Commission involving same facts; hence, decided by common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the separate orders dated 2.07.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal Nos. 389,397,391,392,393,395,396,385,388,392,399,386,387,394,398 of 2012 and Appeal No. 621 of 2013 Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Varun Gupta and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeals filed by the petitioner, order of District Forum allowing complaints was upheld. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was allotted residential plot in the residential scheme floated by OP/petitioner. OP assured to provide facilities of road, post office, shopping mall, water and electricity, telephone, etc. OP asked complainant to deposit remaining amount of the plot, failing which, security amount will be forfeited; though, facilities were not provided by the OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for direction not to forfeit the security amount and pay compensation as mentioned in the complaint. OP resisted complaint and denied that development work has not been carried out and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaints and directed OP to return deposited amount along with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 9 days.

COUNSEL for respondent appeared in R.P. No. 4165 of 2012 and in other revision petitions, none appeared even after service; hence, they were proceeded ex -parte.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was only delay of 9 days in filing revision petitions, delay may be condoned. We agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and delay of 9 days in filing revision petitions stands condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Learned Counsel for the respondent also agreed to the fact that impugned order is not a speaking order.

HON ''ble Apex Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, 2001 10 SCC 659 observed as under: "1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms: ''We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well -reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission".

In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.

CONSEQUENTLY , Revision Petition Nos. 3981, 3982,4013 to 4017, 4064 to 4067, 4164 to 4166, 4728 of 2012 and R.P. No. 621 of 2013 Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Varun Gupta filed by the petitioner are allowed and impugned order dated 2.7.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal Nos. 389,397,391,392,393,395,396,385,388,392,399,386,387,394,398 of 2012 and Appeal No. 621 of 2013 Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Varun Gupta and Ors.is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding it by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 2.9.2014. A copy of this order may be sent to the Rajasthan State Commission, Jaipur.