ARIHANT SHIVANK INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. NEETU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These first appeals no. 594 of 2021, 595 of 2021, 596 of 2021 and 597 of 2021 are decided by this order since in all these four appeals the issue involved is the same, only the flat number and the names of the complainants are different.

(2.) Background of the case is that the complainants i.e. respondents in these appeals had booked the flats with the appellant which the appellant had failed to deliver in time. The complainants thereafter filed their separate complaints. During the pendency of the complaint, after the notice was issued to the appellant, the appellant filed its written version and the matter thereafter was listed for recording the evidences of the parties. While the complainants filed their evidence, the appellant failed to file its evidence despite number of opportunities being given to it, and finally on 02.05.2018 subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- one more opportunity was given to the appellant for filing its affidavit in evidence. On 08.05.2018, although the appellant filed its affidavit in evidence of Mr. Rakesh Goel one of the directors' of the appellant, it did not pay the cost. The State Commission adjourned the matter on several occasions for the payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- but appellant failed to comply with the directions of the State Commission and then finally State Commission rejected the evidence of the appellant and proceeded to decide the matter without taking into consideration the evidence of Mr. Rakesh Goel, filed on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) This started first round of litigation in the appeals filed by the appellant. In the First Appeals No. 1886/2018, 1887/2018, 1888/2018 and 1889/2018 this Commission vide its order dated 10.02.2021, issued following directions: 7. It is evident that the State Commission has passed the Impugned Orders without taking on record the Evidence filed by the Opposite Party Builder as the Builder has failed to deposit the Costs. After taking into consideration the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission was not justified in law refusing to take the evidence filed by the Opposite Party Builder merely on the ground of not depositing the Costs. It ought to have granted some more opportunity for depositing / payment of the Costs. Thus, there has been failure of justice. We are, therefore, not going into the various pleas on merits of the Appeals raised by the learned Counsels for the Parties, leaving it open for them to raise it before the State Commission. Therefore, without going into the merits of the Appeals, in the interest of justice, the impugned Orders passed by the State Commission are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the State Commission for proper adjudication of the cases after taking into account the Evidence filed by the Opposite Party Builder. All the Complaint Case Nos. 03/2017, 20/2017, 21/207, 22/2017 and 23/2017 are restored to the files of the State Commission. The Evidence filed by the Opposite Party Builder shall be taken on record by the State Commission subject to payment of Costs of 5,000/- by the Opposite Party Builder to the Complainant, in each case, within 10 days from today. The State Commission is requested to expeditiously decide the matters afresh after taking into account the Evidence filed by both the Parties, preferably if possible within six months from the date of first appearance before the State Commission. The Parties and/or their Counsels shall appear before the State Commission on 25.02.2021 and shall file a copy of this Order. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount alongwith accrued interest, if any, to the Appellant within 10 days from today. The First Appeals stand disposed of in above terms. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to Costs. Order Dasti.