ORDER

1.   This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 14.01.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 971 of 2016.

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the original complainant’s son) and for the respondent no. 1 (the builder co.). No one appears for the respondents no. 2 to no. 4 (the society and its office bearers). We have perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 14.01.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.     Briefly, as evinces from the appraisal made by the State Commission and the material on record, the original complainant Devendra Jaole had filed a complaint against the builder co. and three others before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He executed a gift deed on 14.03.2017 in favour of his son Chaitanya D. Jaole who moved an application on 08.01.2018 seeking substitution in place of his father on the basis of the gift deed. The original complainant expired on 09.01.2018. The application dated 08.01.2018 for substitution on the basis of the gift deed was not considered. On 14.01.2019 the State Commission dismissed the complaint as having abated on ground that application for substitution of legal representatives was not moved after the death of the original complainant on 09.01.2018.

4.     The crux of the appraisal made by the State Commission as contained in paras 9 and 10 of its impugned Order is being reproduced below for reference:

[9] However, it is material to note that the same gift deed was executed on 14/03/2017. This application was moved on 08/01/2018. However, father of applicant died on 09/01/2018 as submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanojia for the applicant and the learned advocate Mr. S. B. Prabhawalkar for the respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Prabhawalkar has given a specific application that since original complainant died on 09/01/2018, consumer complaint stands abated as LRs are not brought on record. Here in the present case, this applicant is LR being son of the original complainant. However, application for bringing LRs was not moved by the son, but he continued with application which was filed one day before death of father for substitution. The fact remains that the application is yet not allowed and the original complainant died on 09/01/2018. As LRs are not brought on record and even application was not moved, the consumer complaint stands abated. In view of these facts, entertaining this application amounting to entertain the application in the consumer complaint which is already abated. It was necessary for the applicant who is son of the original complainant to move an application for bringing LRs of the original complainant to move an application for bringing LRs of the original complainant on record within time or with the application for condonation of delay. However, that was not done and hence with these circumstances, this application cannot be entertained. Hence, it is rejected.

          [10] Consumer complaint is disposed off as abated.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant’s son submits that the complainant i.e. his father had made a gift deed in his favour in respect of the subject flat on 14.03.2017. Based thereon he had moved an application on 08.01.2018 for substitution in place of his father. His application ought to have been duly considered and decided. Without considering his application the State Commission abated the complaint on ground that application for substitution of legal representatives was not filed after the demise of the complainant on 09.01.2018. Submission is that the application for substitution on the basis of the gift deed ought to have been duly considered and decided and he ought to have been substituted in the normal wont and that there was no need for any subsequent or other application for substitution of legal heirs.

Learned counsel also submits that the State Com