Before :- Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7979-7980 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 24533-24534 of 2019) (Diary No.35128 of 2019). D/d. 14.10.2019.
Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Balvinder Singh - Respondents
For the Appellants :- Kabir Dixit, Arjun Jain and Sourish Bagchi, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Polly Shera and Sudhir Kr. Pandey, Advocates.
ORDER
Deepak Gupta, J. - Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These present appeals are directed against the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as "Commission") dated 12.10.2018 and 18.07.2019. The appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 12.10.2018 which reads as follows:
"In the forenoon session the learned proxy counsel for the appellants Mr. Mishra Raj Shekhar, Advocate made a mention on behalf of the learned counsel, Mr. Arjun Jain, Advocate and requested for adjournment. He undertook to inform the learned counsel for the respondent - complainant about the request for adjournment.
In the afternoon session learned counsel for the respondent - complainant along with the complainant Mr. Balvinder Singh informed that they were present throughout the day and that they have no information of adjournment being sought by the appellants.
They also submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 04.09.2017, the appellants have not paid the amount of L 5,000/- to cover to and fro and allied expenses
Learned proxy counsel for the appellants submitted that the matter will be verified and the position informed.
We perused the material on record, including, specifically, the application for condonation of delay, reply thereto, and earlier daily order-sheets dated 04.09.2017, 05.03.2018 and 02.08.2018 (including presence of the counsels for the parties on the said dates). We heard learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and the complainant in person. We also heard Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate, who had earlier appeared for the appellants on 04.09.2017, 05.03.2018 and 02.08.2018. He inter alia submitted that he does not have instructions to represent the appellant/learned counsel for the appellant today (i.e. on 12.10.2018).
The instant appeal is dismissed.
Reasoned judgment will follow."
4. It appears that soon thereafter on 22.10.2018 the appellants filed an application for review of the order dated 12.10.2018 and this application was rejected on 18.07.2019 on the ground that since the main appeal has been dismissed and reasons are yet to be given the review application is not maintainable and was therefore dismissed.
5. We have been informed by learned counsel for the parties that till date reasons, pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2018, have not been given by the Commission, though more than a year has been passed. We cannot appreciate this system of adjudicating appeals whereby an appeal is dismissed without giving reasons and reasons are not given for such a long period of time.
6. The review application itself was finally decided on 18.07.2019 and it is apparent that, at least, till 18.07.2019 no reasons had been given. This is not the way the Commissions are required to function. These Commissions have been set up with a view to give quick relief to the parties and if reasons are not given for years on end then the whole purpose of setting up such Commissions is thwarted.
7. As far as the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants appearing before the Commission has filed an affidavit stating that he had telephonically communicated the opposite counsel that he would be requesting for an adjournment and also sent a text message, on the next day, regarding the request for adjournment. It appears also from the order dated 12.10.2018 that in the first part of the day request for adjournment was made and the said request was directed to be communicated to the other side. Learned counsel for the respondent controverts the allegations made. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and counter allegations, we refrain from entering into the factual aspect of the dispute which may cause embarrassment to either counsel.
8. We, however, feel that the appeal before the Commission should have been decided on merits. We, therefore, set aside both the orders of the Commission subject to payment of costs of L 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent within two weeks from today. The counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the Commission on 06.11.2019, where-after the Commission shall dispose of the appeal, after hearing both the sides, as expeditiously as possible.
9. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
