JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY SHRI PREM NARAIN, MEMBER [COURT No.6] IN R.P.No.2943 / 2015 PRONOUNCED ON 05-9-2017 WITHOUT CARING TO GO THROUGH THE REVISION PETITION FILED ON 17.11.2015 TO THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC), NEW DELHI IN A SLIPSHOD MANNER—HON. PM MAY LIKE TO SEE THE DEPLORABLE WORKING OF NCDRC.
On my behalf, my husband, S S Rao (78 years) appeared in the above case as a Party-in-Person. My husband is a Retd. Agricultural Scientist from NSC; A Govt. of India Undertaking and is capable of forcefully arguing the case. However, he was denied an opportunity to argue the case to vindicate the position. . He has not given my husband a chance to put-forth his arguments in the case as is the case with a Party-in-Person who is treated with utter disregard.
It is very sad that it was abruptly announced by Hon. Justice Prem Narain on 26th May, 2017 that it was reserved for judgment
2. Nevertheless, I had sent "Written Arguments" by Speed Post to the Registrar, NCDRC with an ardent hope that the same shall be helpful to the Hon. Justice before taking a final view in the matter with a dispassionate outlook.
3. Having kept it in cold storage for a long period of 102 days, the judgment was summarily dismissed on 05th September, 2017. .
4. (i) In the R.P. filed before NCDRC on 17.11.2015 cited above, I have clearly requested for refund of only the difference of Rs.81,850/-. This is because the Realtor delayed the Registration of the Flat despite reminder sent by me through email dt.29.9.2012. In the mean time, the Circle Rates were enhanced by the Noida Development Authority in between possession Date 28.6.2012 and Registration Date 28.12.2012. [Ref.Page No.8 of R.P.]
However, the Hon. Justice erroneously mentioned in his judgment that the hiked Circle Rate Amount of difference claimed by me as Rs.1,68,320/-. At the very same time, he remained silent and preferred not to mention about the relief, if any, to be given to the Petitioner in this regard or otherwise. It is not understood as to how he had mentioned about the inflated figure of Rs.1,68,330 when the actual amount claimed was only Rs.81,850/-.[Page 2 of the Order].
(ii) The Hon. Justice had dwelt at length to deny the refund of Rs.25,000/- given as bribe for Registration of Flat when this was not claimed at all by the Petitioner in the R.P. referred to above. I am at a loss to understand as to how the Hon. Justice dwelt on this vividly when I had not preferred this claim.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that the Hon. Justice delivered the judgment with pre-conceived notions and without caring to go through the R.P. Instead of Revision Petition filed to NCDRC, Hon. Justice had carelessly delivered judgment on the basis of complaint filed in New Delhi Dist. Consumer Forum.