M/S. Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. … vs Joy Kaliyavumkal & Anr. Etc on 10 January, 2018



                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.133-135 OF 2018
                         (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.22802-22804 of 2016)

          M/s Mangalam Homes 
          Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Ors.                                       …. Appellant(s)


          Joy Kaliyavumkal  Anr. Etc.                                 … Respondent(s)


Deepak Gupta J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment

dated 06.01.2015 and 08.12.2015, whereby the appeals filed by the

complainants (Respondents herein) and the review petitions filed by

the petitioners were allowed. Each set of complainants was awarded
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.01.10
16:57:09 IST

Rs.14 lakhs as compensation along with interest @12% per annum

w.e.f. 06.09.2011 on the ground that the appellants (builder) had

compromised a similar matter with one Shri P.V. Babu in a civil

suit. In view of the decision which we propose to take, it is not

necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail.

4. The main ground raised is that the appellants herein were

wrongly proceeded ex parte and only on this ground the order of the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘the National

Commission’ for short) should be set aside and the matter be

remanded to the National Commission to decide the same after

hearing both the sides.

5. On behalf of the appellants it is urged that the appellants had

received notice dated 08.07.2014 from the National Commission

and, thereafter, they had sent a reply on 25.07.2014 praying that

the matter may be heard in the Camp Sitting of the National

Commission at Bengaluru. According to the appellants, no reply

was received to this letter. On behalf of the claimants/respondents

it is urged that the appellants were aware of the case and that the

matter had been settled on the basis of a compromise arrived at by

the appellants with another consumer and there is no need to set

aside the order. After going through the record we find that the

appellants had made a request that their matter be heard at

Bengaluru. Copies of the orders passed thereafter have been placed

on record and the record does not show that the appellants were

ever informed that their request for having the matter heard at

Bengaluru was either accepted or rejected. Therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that the National Commission erred in not

issuing fresh notice to the appellants. Accordingly, the order of the

National Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the

National Commission for hearing the same on merits.

6. Vide order dated 22.07.2016 while issuing notice we had

directed the appellants to deposit the amount as awarded by the

National Commission. The said amount shall remain in deposit and

disbursal of the same shall abide by the final decision of the

National Commission.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the National

Commission at Delhi on 12th February, 2018.

8. With these directions the appeals stand disposed of. Pending

applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(Madan B. Lokur)


(Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi
January 10, 2018

Article source: Supreme Court

WP Socializer Aakash Web