CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, ANNEX BANK STREET, HORNIMAN CIRCLE, FORT, MUMBAI Vs. SUMANT KUMAR JHA & ANR. A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant states that since Respondent No.2 was not present at the time when the order impugned in the present Appeal was passed, she may be permitted to drop the said Respondent from the array of parties' name. Ordered accordingly at the risk of the Appellant.

(2.) This First Appeal, by a real estate developer, namely, Classic Developers Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in CC/15/304. By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed ex parte proceedings against the Appellant as, despite service of notice, they had remained unrepresented on 28.9.2015 as well as on the date when the impugned order was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has vehemently submitted that though in its order dated 28.9.2015, the State Commission has recorded its satisfaction that the notices are duly served on the Opposite Party, yet the Appellant still maintains that no such notice for the said date had been received by them and therefore, the State Commission erred in passing the order impugned in this Appeal. It is also urged that in view of the fact that a full 'Occupation Certificate' had already been obtained by the Appellant from Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika as far back as on 10.9.2014, there was no reason for the Appellant to avoid appearance before the State Commission and contest the Complaint, more so, when against the total cost of Rs. 28,00,000.00 for the residential flat in question, the Complainant had paid only a paltry sum of Rs.5,60,000.00, i.e., 20% of the purchase price. It is also submitted that though the Appellant did not get an opportunity to file its Written Version but on Complainant's own showing, he did receive several notices from the Appellant, demanding payment of the amount due in terms of the Agreement dated 27.6.2011, but admittedly the same was not paid.