G A BUILDERS (RNA CORPORATION GROUP COMPANY) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, GOKUL AGGARWAL Vs. SHRUTI KIRTI LADDHA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, is directed against the order dated 26.9.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.CC/13/158. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondents herein, the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not delivering the possession of Flat No.1102, 11th floor, in the project launched by the Appellant at Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai, the State Commission, has allowed the same with the direction to the Appellant to deliver jointly and severally, a vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No.1102 on 11th floor in the project, named RNA Sagar, or an alternative flat of the same size of 610 sq.ft. in the same project and in the vicinity, by accepting the balance consideration of Rs. 9,11,391.85 from the Complainants, within a period of 45 days from the date of its. At the same time, the State Commission has also granted an alternative relief to the Complainants in the form of refund of the amount of Rs. 22,84,488/- along with default interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of each deposit, within a period of 45 days, with a default stipulation of enhanced rate of interest of 24% p.a. for the said period. Hence, the present Appeal.

(2.) The main grievance of the Appellant is that the date for final hearing of the Complaint having been pre-poned without any notice to them and thus depriving them of their valuable right to contest the Complaint, the order deserves to be set aside. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order sheets/the cause list, maintained by the State Commission for the dates fixed in the Complaint, we are inclined to agree with the stand of the Appellant.

(3.) It can be seen from the cause list, issued by the State Commission for listing of the matters on 26.7.2016, when the matter was initially listed for final arguments, the hearing was deferred to 4.10.2016. However, somehow the same was changed to 11.8.2016. Since it is the stand of Complainant No.2, who is present in person, that he is not aware of the circumstances under which the date was preponed and no other reason for the same is forthcoming from the documents on record, we are convinced that the State Commission was not justified in hearing final arguments in the Complaint in the absence of the Appellant on 26.9.2016, because as per the document on Pg.122 of this Appeal, the case was directed to be listed for final hearing on 4.10.2016.