Bhakti & Gbm Colonizers vs Shobha Kashyap

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 06.08.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 84 of 2018.

Repeatedly called out, intermittently.

No one appears for the appellant (the ‘builder’).

It is seen that on the earlier occasion also when the matter was listed before the bench i.e. on 09.05.2022 no one had appeared for the builder.

Mr. S. R. Kajla, learned counsel is present for the respondent (the ‘complainant’). He was also present on the earlier occasion i.e. on 09.05.2022.

Mr. S. R. Kajla, learned counsel for the complainant submits that vide its impugned Order of 06.08.2018 the State Commission has essentially ordered the builder to hand over physical possession of the subject unit to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement on payment of the amount legally due against her and to execute and get registered the sale-deed within one month from the date of handing over possession on payment of registration charges and stamp duty etc. by the complainant.

Learned counsel further submits that the principle defence taken by the builder in its appeal is that the sale-deed of the subject unit has already been registered on 28.03.2017 in favour of the complainant. He submits that this is a palpably false and misleading statement. He points out that in the copy of the registered sale-deed annexed with the memo of appeal one Kesar Singh Garcha has been shown to have purportedly signed on behalf of the complainant i.e. Smt. Shobha Kashyap. But the complainant (Smt. Shobha Kashyap) does not even know the said Kesar Singh Garcha at all. The complainant never authorised him or anyone else by way of power of attorney or in any other manner to act on her behalf. Submission is that the sale-deed being put up by the builder is a fabricated document.

Learned counsel further submits that after the State Commission had passed its Order on 06.08.2018, execution proceedings had been initiated against the builder by the complainant before the State Commission. The said sale-deed was never relied upon as defence in the execution proceedings. The builder has now contrived to place this manufactured document before this Commission while filing its appeal on 27.05.2019. Submission is that this is out-and-out a misleading concocted document full of deceit and misrepresentation which is being used by the builder as a ploy to play fraud with the complainant and also with this Commission.

Learned counsel also submits that the builder is not coming forth to argue its case since it is based on complete falsehood and fabrication and that the builder only wants to prolong the litigation and continue to enjoy the benefit of stay which was granted by this Commission on 31.05.2019 at the time of admission of this appeal.

Be that as it may, without examining the submissions made, and without entering into the merits of the matter, we feel that in the wake of absence of the appellant builder the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default.

As such the appeal stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.