Justice Is Achieved Only When Opposite Party Is Given Fair Opportunity: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that justice can only be achieved if both parties are given a reasonable opportunity to prove their case.Brief Facts of the Case The complainants, a husband and wife working in the private sector, sought to purchase a home and were attracted by the builder's representations. They booked a flat in the SMR Vinay Iconia housing project by SMR Builders/builder for a total price of ₹1,03,49,800, paying an initial amount of ₹46,00,000 in two installments, followed by ₹57,49,800 as per the payment plan. They also paid ₹20,69,960 from a housing loan obtained from the State Bank of India and incurred interest of ₹21,02,972, which increased with ongoing EMIs. According to Clause 5 of the Agreement, the builder was obligated to deliver possession of the flat by September 30, 2019, with a six-month grace period ending March 31, 2020. Despite multiple reminders, the builder failed to deliver possession or execute the Sale Deed, leading the complainants to file a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the State Commission of Telangana. The notice to the builder was returned unclaimed, resulting in the builder being placed ex-parte. The State Commission found the builder guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It directed the builder to deliver possession of the flat along with the occupancy certificate within 60 days, pay a monthly rent of ₹10,000 from October 2019 until compliance, and pay ₹5 lakhs in compensation along with ₹50,000 in costs to the complainants. Aggrieved, the builder filed an appeal before the National Commission.Contentions of the BuilderThe builder argued that there was no deficiency in its service and that it had a strong defense for the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, provided it had been given an opportunity to present its case.Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that no notice was served to the complainant during the Consumer Complaint proceedings, as the builder only received the final ex-parte order. It was noted that the company's name was incorrectly listed as “M.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd.” instead of the correct name, “M/s S.M.R Builders Pvt. Ltd.” However, the address on the envelope containing the final order was accurate. Therefore, the State Commission's conclusion that the builder was “served” appeared erroneous and should be set aside. The State Commission had placed the builder ex parte without verifying proper notice service, as the notice was not correctly addressed or sent to the registered address. This resulted in a denial of the builder's opportunity to represent its case. The Commission cited the Supreme Court judgment in G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada & Ors. (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54, which emphasized that justice can only be achieved if a defendant is given a reasonable opportunity to prove their case. The National Commission was set aside, and the builder was directed to be given an opportunity to present its case before the State Commission. The complaint was remanded to the State Commission under its original number.Case Title: M/S S.M.R. Builders Private Limited Vs. Sri. Biju Vijay Kumar & Anr.Case Number: F.A. No. 854/2023

Justice Is Achieved Only When Opposite Party Is Given Fair Opportunity: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

Tags