Summary
The State Commission should have admitted subsequent architect and municipal correspondence relevant to the developers’ ability to obtain an occupancy certificate. The documents arose after the appeal was filed and therefore could not have been produced before the District Forum. Their rejection merely as “not necessary” was unreasoned and prevented substantiation of the developers’ case. The matter was remitted for admission of the documents and decision of the pending appeal on merits.
Issues
- Whether subsequently created documents relevant to compliance with the occupancy-certificate direction should be admitted in the consumer appeal.
Held
- Additional appellate evidence may be admitted where, despite due diligence, it was not known or could not have been produced when the decree was passed. These documents admittedly arose only after the appeal was filed. (¶ 3.1–3.2)
- The correspondence was relevant to the contention that unauthorised structures had to be removed before an occupancy certificate could be obtained. Without it, the developers could not substantiate their claimed inability to comply. (¶ 3.3)
- The bare conclusion that the documents were unnecessary did not supply reasons or assess the matter holistically. The National Commission’s affirmance could not stand. (¶ 4–6)
Result
Appeal allowed. State and National Commission orders rejecting additional evidence set aside. State Commission to take the documents on record and decide the pending appeal on merits according to law, expeditiously. Ultimate liability and compliance issues not finally decided.