Case nº First Appeal No. 1408 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 12/04/2016 in Complaint No. 153/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) of NCDRC Cases, May 25, 2017 (case Inderpal Singh Sidhu Vs Managing Director, Ms. Eldeco Jalandhar Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.)
|Judge:||For Appellant: Mr. Manu Prabhakar, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Advocate|
|President:||Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member|
|Defense:||Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 21(a)(ii), 19|
|Resolution Date:||May 25, 2017|
|Issuing Organization:||NCDRC Cases|
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the impugned order dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaint No. 153/2014 filed by the present appellant Inderpal Singh Sidhu, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed in default. The said order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the State Commission reads as follows:-
No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant, though the complaint was called several times. No evidence has been produced by him. In these circumstances, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the complaint in default.
The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question saying that he had entered into an agreement dated 09.05.2011 with the respondent/Opposite Party/OP for the purchase of Unit 57, situated at Eldeco Greens, Jalandhar. The respondent/OP had agreed to deliver the possession of the Unit by 26.05.2012. However, on their failure to provide the unit as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the respondent/OP to hand over the physical possession of the unit and also to provide compensation on various grounds. The said complaint was fixed for hearing on 12.04.2016, for which the main counsel had deputed a junior counsel to attend the same. However, by the time the Junior Advocate reached the State Commission, the case had already been heard and the impugned order had been passed. The Junior Advocate was informed by the staff of the Commission that the matter had been fixed for hearing on 27.05.2016.
During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Junior Advocate was late in reaching the State Commission due to breakdown of his vehicle on the way. The said Junior Advocate was wrongly informed that the next date of hearing was 27.05.2016. The counsel was, therefore, not aware of the impugned order, by which the complaint had been dismissed in default. The learned counsel argued that the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the complainant should not be allowed to suffer, even if his Advocate was at fault in some form or the other.
The learned counsel for the respondent/OP, however, vehemently opposed the plea taken by the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL