Improvement Trust Faridkot & Anr. vs Sukhraj Singh

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission dated 26.06.2020 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum asking for the refund of the amount alongwith other reliefs, which he had deposited with the petitioner for purchase of the subject property and since the petitioner did not honour the terms of the contract and could not give the possession of the subject property to him, he had asked for the refund of his deposited amount alongwith other reliefs. The petitioner had contested the complaint and produced evidences and the District Forum after considering the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguing counsels on behalf of the parties, on merit passed the order dated 25.11.2019 against the petitioner asking him to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith other relief.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum filed an appeal. On the hearing, the following order dated 24.1.2020 was passed by the State Commission :

"Heard.

Admitted.

Notice be issued to respondent for 24.03.2020, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- within three weeks in the Registry towards expenses of engaging counsel and to and for expenses of respondent/complainant only by way of Demand Draft in the name of the complainant. Registry is directed to issue notice only after compliance of this condition by the appellants.

Record (Scanned/Photocopy) of the District Forum be called, as per the latest guidelines issued by the Hon'ble National Commission, vide letter No.M-20/NCDRC/2018 dated 30.08.2018."

The petitioner, however, did not honour the directions of the State Commission and did not pay to and fro expenses to the complainant.

He moved an application for extension of time to deposit of the to and fro expenses as directed by the State Commission but the State Commission vide impugned order dated 26.6.2020 dismissed the application, stating therein that it amounted to review of its own order which was not permissible under the old Act of 1986, held as under :

M.A.No.644 of 2020 (For extension of time to deposit cost) & Main case

Heard.

Vide order dated 24.01.2020, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent for 24.03.2020, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- within three weeks in the Registry towards expenses of engaging counsel and to and fro expenses of respondent/complainant. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was not deposited by the appellants.

After expiry of stipulated period, learned counsel for the appellants moved Misc. Application No.644 of 2020 for extension of time to deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that due to communication gap and other official formalities the said amount could not be deposited. The order was passed on 24.01.2020. Three weeks period provided in the said order expired on 14.02.2020. During that period there was no pandemic of COVID-19. Even otherwise, the said application cannot be accepted and the time cannot be extended as it will amount to review of my own order and I have no power to recall/review my own order. The position has been made clear by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held in "Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr." IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) that neither the State Commission nor District Forum has, under the provisions of the Act, the power to review/recall/modify an order passed by it. That proposition of law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor" 2013 (1) CPR 597 (SC). Application is dismissed accordingly.

Main Case

Since the amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been deposited, which was condition precedent to issue notice to the respondent, hence the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed, due to non-compliance of order dated 24.01.2020.

The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Forum forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

During the course of arguments learned counsel has admitted that notice of the appeal was not served upon the respondent as he did not comply with the directions. No notice of MA in which the impugned order was passed was also issued to the respondent/complainant. It is apparent that the respondent/complainant is not in picture and, therefore, there is no necessity of issuing any notice of the present revision petition to him.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had failed to honoured the directions of the State Commission and did not deposit the to and fro expenses and subsequently only moved an application for extension of time, and since it is also an admitted fact that the respondent had paid him a sum of Rs.11,78,326/- towards purchase of the subject property and it is also an admitted fact that the subject property was not handed over to him, in the interest of justice and in exercise of power under Section 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 now Section 38 (8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, while setting aside the impugned order and giving the petitioner ten days' time to comply with the directions of the State Commission dated 24.01.2020 and also subject to petitioner depositing the entire sum of Rs.11,78,326/- with the District Forum within a period of four weeks (it being the money which the respondent/complainant had paid to them and which this Commission is of the opinion should be secured), the present revision petition is allowed.

Copy of this order shall be sent to the State Commission immediately. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 02.12.2020.

In case of non-compliance of these directions, this order will have no effect and revision petition should be considered as being dismissed.