AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANT Nos. 1 to 3 in Complaint No. 166/2002 are the flat purchasers. As far as complainant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, their main grievance was in respect of delay in delivery of possession of the flats and as far as complainant No. 3 is concerned, no possession was delivered. No occupancy certificate was also obtained by the builder. COMPLAINANT Nos. 1 and 2 have also alleged various deficiencies and failure to provide amenities, which have been specifically set out in paras 5 and 6 of the complaint. In case of complainant No. 3, prayer is made for refund of the amount with adequate compensation. Builder although served with process, chose not to file appearance or written statement. Builder has not challenged or controverted the case of the complainants as set out in the complaint. State Commission, therefore, passed order in favour of the complainants on 13.3.2003.
THE builders filed misc. application No. 863/2003 for setting aside ex parte order. THE State Commission by order dated 20.4.2004 rejected the application for recalling the ex parte order. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection order, the builders approached the National Commission by filing revision petition. Said revision petition was rejected by the National Commission by order dated 4.10.2004. Builders thereafter approached Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal and set aside the rejection order passed by the State Commission and National Commission. Supreme Court remitted the matter to the State Commission for passing appropriate orders on merits of application for restoration of the orignal complaint before it. Appeal was allowed to that extent only. Supreme Court did not express opinion on the submission to the effect that State Commission has no power to set aside the ex-parte order passed by it.
We heard Mr. N.D. Jaywant, Advocate for the applicants and Mrs. Virginia Soares-respondent No. 3 in person.
ORIGINAL O.Ps. were duly served and, therefore, State Commission passed the ex parte order. The original O.Ps. have now moved the State Commission for setting aside ex parte order/recalling the ex parte order passed by the State Commission. National Commission in the case of M/s. Scooters India Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar, reported in III (1999) CPJ 77 (NC)=1986-2002 CON.C (Part IV) 6298 (NS) and Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Hospital Trust, reported in III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 146=(1999) 4 SCC 325, have held that District Consumer Forums and State Commissions have no power of review. In view of the well settled legal position, request of original O.Ps. for recalling the order cannot be entertained. In the result, we pass following order : ORDER Application for review of the order stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Application dismissed.