BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member In the matter of Review Application 13 of 2024 in Consumer Complainant 42 of 2019.

Mr. Neville Brian Ambrose Quadros, Son of Mr. Hillary Quadros, 37 years of Age, Married, Service, R/o E-403, Edcon Pinto Rio Grande, Near YMCA, Campal, Panaji Goa 403001. …Applicant-1 Mrs. Neeshma Jenifer Quadros, Wife of Mr. Neville Brian Ambrose Quadros, 31 years of Age, Married, Housewife, R/o E-403, Edcon Pinto Rio Grande, Near YMCA, Campal, Panaji Goa 403001. …Applicant-2 V.

Edcon Real Estate Developers, Represented by its partner, Duly registered Partnership Firm, Having office at 5th floor, Siddharth Bandodkar Bhavan, Above Axis Bank, Dr. P. Shirgaonkar Road, Panaji-Goa. ...Respondent-1 Eng. Edwin Menezes, Son of Mr. Antonio Menezes, 48 years of Age, Married, Businessman, R/o T-4, Corte de Oiteiro, Panaji-Goa. ...Respondent-2 Eng. Cedric A. Vaz, Son of Mr. Agostinho Vaz, 49 years of Age, Married, Businessman, R/o T-4, Indira Apartments, Caetano Albuquerque Road, Panaji-Goa. ...Respondent-3 Adv. Shri. Iftikar Agha present alongwith with Applicant in person.

Adv. Shri. Sarvesh Rivonkar present for Opposite Parties.

DATE: 13/03/2025 ORDER [per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]

1. This Order shall dispose off Review Application 13/2024 filed by Petitioner u/s 50 of CPA 2019 against Order dated 13/06/2024 passed by this Commission in CC/42/2019 on application for production of additional documents dated 06/12/2023.

2. The brief facts in short are as follows:

i. That this Commission committed errors apparent on the face of record in holding at paragraph-9 that the application filed by the Complainant has been done only to protrude the proceedings and no sufficient cause has been shown to file the application at such a belated stage and therefore not inclined to allowed the said application. Also that part Occupancy Certificate was sought to be produced in order to rebut and in view of photographs produced by Opposite Party on earlier dated to show that the project was complete and that this Commission neither looked into the application nor viewed the part Occupancy Certificate.

ii. As per paragraph-11 this Commission further held that no cogent reasons have been given by the Complainant for not having produced the documents earlier and at paragraph-13 it was further held that the applications have been filed continually by both parties and the matter is of 2019 and filed at such a belated stage which can only be viewed as frivolous and wasting the time of this Commission.

iii. That at paragraph-14 it was observed by this Commission that no prejudice will be cause of whatsoever nature to the Complainant if the application is not granted. As stated by the Applicant that it is settled position of law that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and even if there is some delay, the Court should have imposed some cost rather than to decline the production of documents.

iv. That the Applicant stated that the finding rendered by this Commission in paragraphs-8 to 14 constitutes an error apparent on the face of records as well as mistake committed and therefore the Order dated 13/06/2024 is liable to be reviewed alongwith the findings in paragraphs-

8 to 14.

Therefore the Applicant prayed that:

In the interest of justice and fair play the Review Petition be allowed and the Order dated 13/06/2024 be reviewed and the documents sought to be produced by the Applicant dated 06/12/2023 be allowed.

3. On the other hand the Opposite Parties stated that the Petitioners are taking this Commission for a ride by filing malicious application, without any reasons and on the basis of frivolous pretext.

i. That the Petitioners are misguiding this Commission by making false and concocted story for review of Order and the present application shall not be allowed in the interest of justice.

ii. Also