Huda & Anr. vs Seema

The complainant/respondent was allotted a built-up shop in an open auction, in sector 29 of City Centre Gurgaon, in March 2000. Allotment letter dated 04.07.2000 was also issued to her. There was a demand raised by the petitioner which was later reduced from Rs. 336726/- to Rs. 286786/-. The petitioner thereafter raised a demand of Rs. 451936/- with penalty. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which took some preliminary objections and denied that there was no electricity or sewerage etc.

The District Forum vide its order dated 10.12.2002 directed as under:-

"In view of the above, respondents are directed to first provide all the civil Amenities including Water line, sewerage, metalled road, electricity and inform the complainant about the provision and completion of Civil Amenities in writing and thereafter she be delivered possession of shop No.18 at site and not to charge interest on instalments upto the date of delivery of possession and no demand of balance amount should be made till the delivery of possession and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant on her deposits from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of physical possession after providing Civil Amenities as ordered above. Show Cause notice u/s 17(1) & (2) of HUDA Act, 1977 dated 24.1.2002 is quashed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 17.02.2009 the State Commission noted that the order passed by the District Forum had been complied with by the petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the appeal without examining it on merit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since an execution had been filed by the complainant and there was no stay of the execution they had no option except to comply with the order but such compliance should not have come in the way of deciding their appeal on merit, since the compliance was not voluntary and the order of the District Forum was not accepted by the petitioner.

I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite compliance the State Commission ought to have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same solely on the ground that the order of the District Forum had been complied. In the event of the petitioner's succeeding in the appeal it could be entitled to restoration of the benefit which it gave to the complainant in compliance ofo the order of the District Forum. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the same on merits.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the order of the District Forum was complied without any protest. It is, however, an admitted position that the appeal before the State Commission had already been filed. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the compliance was without any reservation.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.08.2020. Considering the age of the case the State Commission shall decide the appeal on merits within 3 months of the parties appearing before it. The revision petition stands disposed of.

Any observation made in this order shall not affect the decision of the State Commission on the merits of the matter.