AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing.
Called out several times. No one appears for the petitioner, who was the opposite party no. 2 before the District Commission.
The respondent no. 1, who was the complainant before the District Commission, is present in person.
The respondents no. 2 and no. 3, who were the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 3 before the District Commission, are ex parte vide Order dated 18.12.2014.
This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.07.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 812 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 25.05.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 27 of 2011.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 25.05.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 25.07.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 25.05.2012 had partly allowed the complaint. It had made the following award:
1) The application of the complainant was partly allowed.
2) The opponent No.1 to 3 should execute a Registered Sale Deed as per the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale executed on 05/06/2008 and accept the remaining amount.
3) It was agreed in the Agreement of Sale that, required stamp, registration fee etc will be spent by purchaser. But since 2008 to till today the stamp and registration fee have been increased in triple and the complainant will have to suffer it without any fault. Therefore, whatever expenses will be incurred for execution of Sale Deed, those will be borne equally by complainant and opponent No. 1 to 3.
4) The opponent No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation, mental harassment and cost of proceedings.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.07.2012 had dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. In dismissing the appeal with cost it had inter alia made the following observations:
[10] Upon taking into consideration the case of the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant, order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with. We do not find any substance in the present appeal. However, we do not want to part with this order by simplicitor dismissing the appeal. What is important to be noted is the fact that agreement to sale was executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant on 5/6/2008 and as per the said agreement, flat and property is to be given to the Respondent No.1 / Complainant. However, ever after lapse of so many years it is still not given to the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant and the Respondent No.1 / Complainant was required to file a consumer complaint after having obtained an order from the District Forum and when the partnership firm and the other partner of the partnership firm have acquiesced to the order passed by the District Forum, Appellant / Opponent No. 2 who is one of the partners of the firm on flimsy grounds has preferred this appeal just to protract the litigation and to harass the consumer. We do not want to encourage such kind of litigations and, therefore, in order to curb such types of litigations we have to deal with iron hands and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal by imposing costs of '25,000/- which shall be deposited by the Appellant / Opponent No. 2 into Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of thirty days from today. Upon failure on the part of the Appellant / Opponent No. 2 to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, Registrar shall issue certificate under Section-25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the District Collector for recovery of costs as arrears of land revenue.
As such, this petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below.
We have perused the proceedings from 2012 onwards before this Commission, and are not appreciative of the way and manner in which this petition has been procrastinated for about 09 years, till 2021. When notice was ordered to be issued on 10.07.2013, the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was stayed till the next date of hearing. The stay was then periodically extended from time to time. No monetary deposit was ordered to be made as condition attached with the grant of stay. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.10.2016, when no one was present on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call. Later on, it was restored to its original number on 13.01.2017. The interim protection of stay was continued. Then on 26.06.2020 also the petitioner was not present, but no adverse order was passed. On 07.07.2021 learned counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment of four weeks citing personal difficulty. The adjournment asked for was granted. Today no one appears for the petitioner despite repeated calls. The respondent no. 1 complainant is present in person.
The complainant went before the District Commission in 2011. The District Commission decided the case in 2012. Appeal before the State Commission was decided in 2012. The instant revision petition is pending before this Commission from 2012. We are now in 2021. The petition, as already stated above, is apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below. Both the fora below have decided in favour of the complainant. On the one hand the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of stay against the impugned Order of the State Commission, on the other hand the petitioner is unduly delaying the proceedings. We feel that sufficient opportunity, and more, has been provided to the petitioner.
In the absence of the petitioner, the petition is dismissed for lack of prosecution. It is made explicit that the respondent no.1 complainant is at liberty to file for execution as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the petitioner and to his learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.