AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present First Appeal is filed by the Petitioner under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in CC No.09/2016dated 06.08.2018.
According to the Appellant, he agreed to purchase House No. 185 measuring 112.50.square meter, with a covered area of 66.37 square meter located at Pocket-L, Ganga Nagar, Meerut for a sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- from the Respondents. The Appellant paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the Respondents. The Respondents agreed to handover possession and registry of the house within 60 days from the date of agreement. The balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was payable at the time of execution of the Sale Deed, but before possession. Thereafter, Appellant had further paid Rs.12,00,000/-. The Respondents handed over the possession of the houses on 20.11.2014. It is alleged by the Appellant that till date Respondents did not execute the Sale Deed of the houses in question. Thus, Complaint was filed by the Appellant against the Respondents alleging deficiency in service.
The State Commission, vide order dated 06.08.2018, dismissed the Complaint on the ground of continuous non-appearance of the Appellant on 18.07.2017, 25.08.2017, 26.12.2017, 28.02.2018, 04.04.2018, 18.06.2018 and on 06.08.2018. The Appellant was also ordered to complete the proceedings related to issue of notice to the Respondents, but the Complainant did not comply with the same.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before this Commission.
The Appellant submitted that the Counsel engaged by the Appellant did not appear despite paying fees to him. Therefore, the Appellant should not be made suffer due to the fault of his Counsel who did not appear before the State Commission on his behalf.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. He reiterated the same contentions as stated above. Also carefully perused the record.
The Counsel for the Appellant remained continuously absent for 7 hearings before the State Commission, as observed in the aforesaid order. One can appreciate, if the Counsel for the Appellant was absent for one or two hearings, but not for 7 continuous hearings, without sufficient cause.The Appellant has further not complied with the order of the State Commission to issue notice to the Respondents. It was clearly stated by the State Commission in its order that one year had since lapsed, but the Appellant has not been able to execute the aforesaid order. The manner in which the case has been proceeded, clearly shows that Appellant was not pursuing his case seriously. It was the duty of the Appellant to keep track of the status of his case and at least periodically enquire with Counsel and take corrective action.
In the continued absence of the Complainant, the court is right in dismissing the complaint for default.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was made to provide speedy justice to consumers. When a case is called for hearing and the party is repeatedly not present, the court is under no obligation to keep the matter pending indefinitely.Consumer Courts should not waste time in hearing matters pending endlessly, which otherwise can be put to proper use in other cases that are genuine and require speedy disposal. The very purpose of constituting Consumer Courts gets defeated, if parties are encouraged to prolong litigation.
In view of the above, we dismiss the First Appeal filed by the Appellant and affirm the order passed by the State Commission.