IMPORTANT POINT
Period of 45 days for written statement shall start only after notice is duly served upon an opposite party alongwith paper-book of case.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—First appeal no. 540/2017 has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.12.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint no. C-550/2014, vide which, the appellants were not permitted to file their written version to the consumer complaint filed by the respondents/complainants on record.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants filed consumer complaint no. C-550/14 before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants builders/opposite parties (OPs) in not delivering the premises in question to them in accordance with the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding entered between the parties, despite the full consideration having been paid to them. A prayer was made in the said consumer complaint that the OPs should be directed to pay the monthly assured return to them in accordance with the terms and conditions of the MOU alongwith interest thereon. During proceedings before the State Commission on the said consumer complaint, interim order dated 14.01.2016 was passed by them, which states as follows:-

“No one has appeared on behalf of the OPs despite awaiting. Even on the last date of hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the OPs. Both the OPs are proceeded ex-parte.

Let complainant file ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit within six weeks.

Re-list on 11.05.2016.”

3. Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the appellants/OPs challenged the same by way of FA No. 214/2016 before this Commission. The said appeal was decided by this Commission vide order dated 17.11.2016, in which it was stated as follows:-

“In the interest of justice, however, the prayer made by the appellants in the appeal, seeking permission to participate in proceedings before the Delhi State Commission is granted. The present appeal is, therefore, allowed and the State Commission is directed to allow the appellants/OPs to join the proceedings before them. In so far as their right to file written version/evidence is concerned, the State Commission shall take decision in accordance with law.”

4. In pursuance of the above order, the matter was heard by the State Commission on 23.12.2016, when the following order was passed:-

“OP has filed WS which is objected by counsel for complainant on the plea that right to file WS has already been closed vide order dated 14.01.2016. The counsel for OP states that though National Commission dismissed FA No. 214/16 against the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by this Commission, vide order dated 17.11.2016 in the last line of the order, it has been mentioned that so far right to file WS/evidence is concerned, State Commission shall take decision in accordance with law.

To my mind, this does not amount to permit OP to file WS otherwise the very purpose of appellate authority would be defeated vide which appeal has been decided. The WS is taken ‘of’ the record.

Re-notify for final arguments on 31.03.2017.”

5. Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the appellants/OPs have filed the present appeal no. 540/2017. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents, who put in appearance through their counsel.

6. During hearing of the matter on 11.04.2017, it was felt that there was an inherent contradiction in the said order and hence, the following order was passed:-

“2. The order of the State Commission suffers from inherent contradiction. On one hand, the State Commission has observed that the remand order passed by the National Commission does not amount to permit the OP to file the written statement, on the other hand, the State Commission has ordered that the written statement be taken on record.

3. The aforesaid contradiction cannot be reconciled. The reasons for condoning the de