NCDRC Stays Ex Parte Proceedings Against GLADA For Violating Principles Of Natural Justice

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Presiding Member) and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (Member), held that the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision to proceed ex parte against the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) was unsustainable and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Commission noted that there was no proof of service of notice on the opposite parties before placing them ex parte, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity to file their written version and defend themselves. Brief Facts The respondent/ complainant was allotted a plot by the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) ( appellant) after the payment of Rs.34,00,000 based on the assurance that possession of the plot would be handed over within 90 days. However, the respondent/ complainant alleged that despite making full payment, possession was not delivered by the promised date of 29 November 2015, as the essential development and construction works were not completed. Consequently, the respondent/ complainant sought a refund of Rs.34,00,000 with 12% interest, along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses. The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties and partly allowed the complaint, directing a refund of Rs.34,00,000 with 12% annual interest, Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental harassment, and Rs.25,000 as litigation costs. The opposite parties thereafter filed an appeal challenging the ex parte order. Arguments of the Parties The appellants, GLADA, challenged the State Commission's ex parte order and denied any deficiency in service. They stated that the complaint was based on incomplete facts and claimed that all necessary development work had been completed by 30 September 2015. Their counsel argued that the construction was finished and the plot was ready for possession. The counsel further submitted that the ex parte order violated the principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given an opportunity to explain the date of receipt of notice before their right to file a written version was closed. It was also argued that the relief granted was excessive and unjustified since the complainant had not suffered any proven financial loss. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that, being a statutory development authority governed by administrative and financial regulations, the appellants could not be equated with private builders. The counsel for the respondent argued that the opposite parties failed to fulfill their contractual obligation to deliver possession of the plot even after receiving the full payment, which amounted to a clear deficiency in service. They stated that the complainant had first paid Rs.8,50,000 and later deposited the remaining Rs.25,50,000 in one lump sum, making the opposite parties responsible for handing over possession by 29 November 2015. The respondent also denied the appellants' claim of deemed possession, arguing that the contract required the authorities to formally hand over possession of the plot. Accordingly, the complainant sought a refund of Rs.34,00,000 with 12% interest, along with Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.33,000 towards litigation costs. Findings of the Commission The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the State Commission's ex parte order was unsustainable as it violated the principles of natural justice and suffered from procedural irregularities. Although a notice had been issued to the opposite parties by registered post on 25 October 2017, there was no acknowledgment or proof of service available on record. Despite this, the State Commission presumed proper service and proceeded ex parte within 43 days, without verifying the actual date of delivery. The NCDRC emphasized that while a presumption of delivery of registered post may exist, there can be no presumption regarding the date of receipt, making the proceedings premature and procedurally flawed. It further held that denial of an opportunity to file the written version amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the case to the State Commission for a fresh hearing, directing disposal preferably within three months. Case Title: Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority vs Rajwinder Kaur FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 2018 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

NCDRC Stays Ex Parte Proceedings Against GLADA For Violating Principles Of Natural Justice

Muhammed Razik

Tags