“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO ADRESS FINAL ARGUMENTS EVEN WHEN NO WRITTEN VERSION WAS FILED AND NO PARTICIPATION MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. /2023

(@ CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 31182/2023)

ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED    ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HARA PRASAD GHOSH                                       …..RESPONDENT(S)

In this case the appellant (Opposite Party before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi “NCDRC” in Complaint Case No.1456/2019) sought an adjournment through a proxy counsel which was refused by NCDRC.

Therefore the NCDRC proceeded to consider the complaint on merits and allowed the complaint directing appellant/Opposite Party to return the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party/appellant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the deposit till the actual payment, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment dated 27.10.2022.

Thereafter opposite party/appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application No.128/2023 before NCDRC seeking recalling of the above order dated 27.10.2022 however the said application was also rejected by NCDRC.

Aggrieved of the above orders of the NCDRC, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Upon perusal of the above impugned order and records of NDCRC, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that although the appellant/opposite party had not filed its written version and also may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, it could not have been restrained from addressing final arguments before the NCDRC.

It was noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a short adjournment was sought by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC through a proxy counsel. However, the NCDRC refused to grant the adjournment for the reasons that no written version had been filed by the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC.

Further it was also apprised to the Hon’ble Apex court by the counsel for respondent that even Vakalatnama was not filed on behalf of the appellant/opposite party before the NCDRC.

However, it was noted by the Hon’ble Court that the counsel was engaged to seek an adjournment in order to address arguments on merits on behalf of the appellant/opposite Party. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant/opposite party had the right to do so even in absence of filing its written version against the complaint.

It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that since the request for adjournment was refused and only the complainant was heard on merits by NCDRC, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and on that short ground alone the impugned orders was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Court remanded the matter to the NCDRC in order to grant a reasonable opportunity to both sides to address arguments on merits in the said complaint and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

***