Lucknow Development Authority vs Prem Kishor Singh & Anr

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 04.04.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP at Lucknow (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 2129 of 2008, wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 was dismissed.

As per the report of the Registry, there is a 43 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.9374/ 2016, the delay is condoned.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint filed before the learned District Forum. “Lucknow Development Authority” is referred to as “the Petitioner/OP-1”, Prem Kishore Singh is referred to as the Respondent No.1/Complainant and Deepali Agarwal is referred to as the Respondent No. 2/OP-2.

Heard the learned Counsels for Petitioner and Respondent No.1/Complainant on the limited question of restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission on 04.04.2016 due to non-appearance of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex-part vide order dated 31.10.2023 as none represented her.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP1 submitted that the Order dated 02.02.2016 passed by this Commission was not communicated to the Petitioner in time and for this reason, the petitioner could not appear on 04.04.2016 before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the Appeal on account of non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner/OP1. He sought to restore the Appeal and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the Appeal on merits.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant submitted that the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal twice on account of non-appearance of the Petitioner/OP1 and the cost imposed by this Commission vide order dated 02.02.2016 was also not paid. He sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advances and the interest of justice, the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No.2129/2008 is set aside and the Appeal is restored, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- by way of demand draft to be paid by the Petitioner/OP1 (Lucknow Development Authority) to the Respondent No.1/Complainant (Prem Kishore Singh) as costs, within one month from the date of this order. The Petitioner/OP1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- previously imposed as costs vide order dated 02.02.2016 passed by this Commission, by way of a demand draft to the Respondent No.1/Complainant, within two months from the date of this Order, if already not paid. Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed.

The learned State Commission is requested to decide the Appeal on merits.

All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

All the parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 26.02.2024.