Case nº Revision Petition No. 2654 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 20/08/2015 in Appeal No. 552/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 28, 2016 (case United Township Corporation Vs Akhilesh Jain)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Arora, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Arora, Advocate and For Respondents:Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Hemant Gupta & Ms. Rashmita Roy Choudhary, Advocates
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 28, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 3, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 552/2012 -- United Township Corporation Vs. Akhilesh Jain by which, appeal was dismissed.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum against OP/petitioner and complaint was admitted on 10.09.2007 and notice were issued for 27.11.2007. OP filed application under Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before District Forum on 23.10.2007 and on 27.11.2007 copy of application was provided by District Forum to the complainant and case was adjourned to 22.1.2008. On that date, the case was adjourned for complainant''s evidence for 23.4.2008. On 23.4.2008, complainant filed reply of OP''s application and case was fixed for arguments on the application and after many adjournments, arguments were heard on 9.7.2008 and case was fixed for orders, but again on 14.7.2008, case was fixed for rehearing on the application which continued upto many years and case was transferred to another District Forum and another District Forum on 18.7.2011 adjourned case for arguments. It appears that on 28.3.2012 arguments were heard and on 29.3.2012 complaint was finally allowed and OP was directed to handover possession of plot after receiving balance amount and also pay interest on deposited amount @ 9% p.a. along with cost of Rs.2,000/- Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

  3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

  4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission while deciding application under Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 decided complaint finally without giving opportunity to OP for filing written statement and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission and petitioner be permitted to file written statement. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as OP has not filed written statement within prescribed period, order passed by Fora below is in accordance with law...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT