PARITOSH JAIN Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application has been filed by the Opposite Party seeking review of the order dated 12.08.2021.

(2.) The background of the case is that the present Complaint No.760 of 2019 was pending for final arguments when after the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Applicant/Opposite Party filed an Application being IA No.51 of 2021 on the ground that this Commission ceases to have Pecuniary Jurisdiction and the matter be sent to the Tribunal of Pecuniary Jurisdiction. Subsequently, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Neena Aneja And Anr. Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 225" has put the issue of Jurisdiction in the cases pending before the Benches prior to coming into force of the new Act at rest and held that such Complaints shall continue before this Commission. Therefore, the IA No.51 of 2021 of the Applicant/Opposite Party has now become infructuous. Since the matter was already listed for final arguments, this Commission expected that the parties shall address the arguments. It is also apparent that the Opposite Party had attended the proceedings of this Commission in several other matters listed on that day and therefore, they had the link to join the hearing in this case as well. When the Commission did not find the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party present to argue the matter, on the insistence of the learned Counsel for the Complainant, proceeded to hear the final arguments and reserved the matter. The Complaint was reserved for order on 02.07.2021 and the final order was pronounced on 12.08.2021.

(3.) It is these two orders which have been challenged before us by the Applicant/Opposite Party alleging that since the order had been passed without hearing the Opposite Party, injustice has been caused to them. It is also alleged that the Opposite Party did not have the link and therefore, could not attend the proceedings in this matter. It is further argued that there is a letter dated 18.04.2021 of the Registry of this Commission whereby the Registry was required to give at least two weeks' prior intimation to the counsels for the parties before listing of any matter for final hearing. It is submitted that this was not done in the present case and therefore, they were not aware that the matter was listed for that date. It is also argued that although, the matter has been disposed of in terms of the decision in "Anish Singhal Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., CC No.2194 of 2016" on the ground that it is a covered case, it in fact is not a covered case. On these contentions and submissions, it is submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and they be given an opportunity of being heard.