AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Taken up through video conferencing.
Repeatedly called out.
No one appears for the petitioner.
Perused the record.
This is a builder-buyer dispute.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 17.01.2019 allowed the complaint on contest and ordered the opposite party builder co. (the revisionist herein) to refund Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the respective dates of deposit i.e. 15.05.2007, 20.08.2007 and 18.05.2009 till realisation to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- within two months of its Order.
The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 15.07.2020 dismissed the appeal of the builder co. (the revisionist herein) at the admission stage.
This revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below. The deposits were made in 2007 and 2009. We are now in 2021.
In the absence of the petitioner, the revision petition is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
Needless to add, the District Commission shall undertake execution as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the petitioner and to the respondent as well as to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.