CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2024) 03 NCDRC CK 0016

M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs Naresh Bhayana

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 13 March 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition No. 1494 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 521 words

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

1.

Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the State Commission UT Chandigarh, vide which the Appeal of the Petitioner herein was dismissed on account of limitation having been filed with a delay of 157 days.

2.

Heard both sides.  It is contended by the Petitioner that he has strong case on merits.  The main dispute is with respect to receipt of Rs.12.00 lacs issued by the Petitioner / OP before the District Forum, which has  been ordered to be refunded by the District Forum.  While the Complainant / respondent contends that he paid Rs.12.00 lacs ( Rs.8.00 lacs and Rs.4.00 lacs vide receipt dated 31.08.2012), the Petitioner / OP contends that they received only Rs.1.00 lakh vide receipt no. 1860 dated 31.08.2012.  It is admitted by the respondent herein that amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs and Rs.4.00 lakhs paid vide receipt dated 31.08.2012 was in cash.  The Petitioner states that these two receipts are not issued by them and  It does not bear their name and they never received such amounts.  Petitioner, however, states that they received Rs. 1.00 lakh from the respondent herein.  The respondent states that he never paid Rs.1.00 lakh, which is evident that the name mentioned in this receipt is Naresh Bhayana s/o Sh. R.D.Sharma while the respondent’s father name is R.D.Bhayana.

3.

We have carefully gone through all the three receipts on record and are of the considered view that prima facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of the petitioner herein as these two receipts for Rs.8.0 lakhs and Rs.4.00 lakhs are not issued by the Petitioner M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. while receipt of Rs.1.00 lakh is seen issued by Petitioner herein.  The mere fact that father’s surname being shown as ‘Sharma’ instead of ‘Bhayana’ does not appear to be sufficient to presume that amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was not paid by respondent.  However, these are the issues which have to be decided on merits after detailed appreciation of evidence of both sides and cannot be finally decided as part of the revision petition.  Accordingly, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where delay in filing appeal before the State Commission can be condoned so that appeal is taken by the State Commission on merits, wherein both sides will be free to raise their contentions and adduce requisite evidence in support of their case.

4.

Accordingly, keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81’, ‘Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649]’ and ‘Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 321], we condone the delay in filing appeal before the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission further disposal on merits after hearing both sides.  Both sides to appear before the State Commission on 24.04.2024.  Thereafter,  State Commission will have liberty to fixe further dates as per their own convenience.

5.

Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly.