Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Suresh Chandra, Member
M/s. Ajit Rawetkar & Company, Through its Proprietor & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Mr. Girish Meghraj Jain —Respondent
Revision Petition No.898 of 2008
(Against order dated 22.10.2007 in First Appeal No.374 of 2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai)
Decided on 17.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Respondent is ex parte.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Fora is an alternative Forum established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to discharge functions of Civil Court.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Agreement for purchase of flat—Petitioner failed to deliver possession of flat—Complaint partly allowed by State Commission—Petitioner-Builder is sitting over amount received from respondent as early as in year 1988—Petitioner had been enjoying amount for more than a quarter century—No flat has been offered by petitioner to respondent till date—Deficiency on part of petitioner is writ large in this case—Order of State Commission is well reasoned which does not call for any interference nor it suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction—Revision Petition dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 9, 15, 16 and 17)
(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 3—Power and functions of Consumer Forum—Consumer Fora is an alternative Forum established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to discharge functions of Civil Court—Legislature has conferred same powers as vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit—Consumer Fora is empowered to issue summons and to enforce attendance of witnesses—Forum is competent to examine witness on oath. The Consumer Fora can direct discovery and production of documents as evidence—Consumer Fora has power to receive evidence on affidavits—Consumer Fora is competent to ask for report from Laboratory or from any other relevant source—Consumer Fora has power to issue any commission for examination of any witness—Consumer Fora is expected to use these tools for disposal of consumer complaint promptly. Advice to approach Civil Court is ill advice which is not called for in present case. (Para 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed with costs.
V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by order dated 22.10.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed this petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’).
2. Respondent/complainant had field a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short, ‘District Forum’) on the ground that he is in business of supplying of building material, whereas Petitioner is a Builder. It is stated that respondent agreed to purchase flat no.402 admeasuring 680 Sq. Ft. on third floor Building No. -B-2 for consideration of Rs.1,90,400/- which was to be paid in the form of supply of cement worth consideration price and the agreement for sale was executed in favour of the respondent by the petitioner on 19.07.1988 which was registered on 28.07.1988. Respondent supplied from time to time cement worth Rs.1,10,226/-. Thus, respondent has paid around 60% of the consideration amount to the petitioner. However, till date, petitioner failed to deliver the possession of the flat. Accordingly, respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking following reliefs;
“a. To order the respondent to accept the remaining payment as consideration for the flat and put the complainant in possession of the same and execute the sale deed.
b. The respondent as has not put the complainant in the possession of the flat he be directed to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss incurred due to his inability to give the flat on rent.
c. The respondent be directed to compensate the complainant with Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by him since 1988. ”
3. Petitioner appeared before the District Forum on 14.5.2003 and sought time to file the written version, but did not file the same. However, the District Forum vide order dated 09.06.2006, dismissed the complaint of the respondent.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, respondent filed (First Appeal No.1093 of 2006) before the State Commission, which allowed the same vide order dated 15.01.2007. The matter was remanded to the District Forum for fresh consideration.
5. After remand, the District Forum again dismissed the complaint, vide order dated 20.03.2007.
6. Respondent again challenged the order of the District Forum and filed (First Appeal No.374 of 2007). The State Commission, partly allowed the same, vide the impugned order and passed the following directions;
“1. Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned dismissal order is quashed and set aside. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Respondent/org. O. P. is directed to refund Rs.1,11,226/- to the appellant/org. complainant with interest @ 9% p. a. from the respective dates of payments till realization.
3. Respondent/org. O. P. is further directed to pay Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant/org. complainant by way of compensation.
4. Respondent/org. O. P. is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/org. complainant by way of cost of this appeal. ”
7. Now aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed this petition.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
9. The case of petitioner is, that the remedy sought by the respondent is in the form of specific performance of agreement dated 28.07.1988. Hence, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction and the Civil Court is proper forum to decide such dispute. Further, it has been submitted, that since amount claimed for refund is only Rs.1,11,226/-, the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.10 lacs.
10. State Commission in impugned order observed;
“The Forum below dismissed the complaint mainly on the grounds :- (1) Identity of the flat to be delivered to the complainant is not established for grant of relief of possession of the flat, (2) Owner of the property and subsequent developers are not joined, (3) Ther
