1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.133-135 OF 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.22802-22804 of 2016)

M/s Mangalam Homes &  Resorts Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.        …. Appellant(s)

Versus

Joy Kaliyavumkal & Anr. Etc.       … Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Gupta J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  common  judgment

dated 06.01.2015 and 08.12.2015, whereby the appeals filed by the

complainants (Respondents herein) and the review petitions filed by

the petitioners were allowed. Each set of complainants was awarded

Rs.14 lakhs as compensation along with interest @12% per annum

2

w.e.f. 06.09.2011 on the ground that the appellants (builder) had

compromised a similar matter with one Shri P.V. Babu in a civil

suit.  In view of the decision which we propose to take, it is not

necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail.

4. The  main ground raised  is  that  the  appellants  herein  were

wrongly proceeded ex parte and only on this ground the order of the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘the National

Commission’  for  short)  should  be  set  aside  and  the  matter  be

remanded to  the  National  Commission  to  decide  the  same  after

hearing both the sides.

5. On behalf of the appellants it is urged that the appellants had

received  notice  dated  08.07.2014  from the  National  Commission

and, thereafter, they had sent a reply on 25.07.2014 praying that

the  matter  may  be  heard  in  the  Camp  Sitting  of  the  National

Commission at Bengaluru.  According to the appellants, no reply

was received to this letter.  On behalf of the claimants/respondents

it is urged that the appellants were aware of the case and that the

matter had been settled on the basis of a compromise arrived at by

the appellants with another consumer and there is no need to set

3

aside the order.  After going through the record we find that the

appellants  had  made  a  request  that  their  matter  be  heard  at

Bengaluru.  Copies of the orders passed thereafter have been placed

on record and the record does not show that the appellants were

ever  informed that  their  request  for  having  the  matter  heard  at

Bengaluru was either accepted or rejected.  Therefore, we are of the

considered  opinion  that  the  National  Commission  erred  in  not

issuing fresh notice to the appellants.  Accordingly, the order of the

National Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the

National Commission for hearing the same on merits.

6. Vide  order  dated  22.07.2016  while  issuing  notice  we  had

directed the appellants to deposit the amount as awarded by the

National Commission.  The said amount shall remain in deposit and

disbursal  of  the  same  shall  abide  by  the  final  decision  of  the

National Commission.

7. The  parties  are  directed  to  appear  before  the  National

Commission at Delhi on 12th February, 2018.

4

8. With these directions the appeals stand disposed of.  Pending

applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

…………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi January 10, 2018