Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President
Ambience Island Apartment Owners – Appellant
versus
Raj Singh Gehlot and Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No.366 of 2016 in OP/93/2004
Decided on 22.7.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 22(2) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 60) – Review of Order - Miscellaneous Appln. filed by 274 Apartment Owners to Review Orders dt. 19.03.2014 & 03.11.2015 applicable to 66 Apartment Owners - Order dt. 19.03.2014 shows the Complaint had been filed by 66 Apartment Owners - No orders passed under provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC, 1908 and 2 Orders dt. 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 cannot be interpreted to be applicable in rem - No ground made out for Reviewing Order dt. 03.11.2015 - Commission rightly directed that benefit of Orders dt. 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 be confined only to 66 Apartment Owners - Enlarging scope of benefit of Orders dt. 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 from 66 Apartment Owners to remaining 274 Apartment Owners dismissed.
Held: From a perusal of the Order dated 19.03.2014, I find that the Complaint had been filed by 66 Apartment Owners only and it is not clear whether any Advertisement of the Public Notice was directed to be made in the newspaper so as to call the Apartment Owners who have not approached this Commission to get themselves impleaded. If this had been done, of course, Order passed on 19.03.2014 in the Complaint would be applicable to all the Apartment Owners otherwise it has to be confined only to the Complainants, i.e., 66 Apartment Owners, who have approached this Commission by filing Original Petition No. 93 / 2004, as would be clear from Para Nos. 1 and 35 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 as also Para Nos. 4 and 8 of the Order dated 03.11.2015, reproduced hereinabove.
Decisions relied upon by the Decree Holders are not applicable to the facts of the case in the Complaint Case as no orders have been passed under the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, 1908 and the two Orders dated 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 cannot be interpreted to be applicable in rem. In fact, they are applicable only to the 66 Apartment Owners who have approached this Commission by filing the Complaint. No ground has been made out for Reviewing the Order dated 03.11.2015 and extending the benefit of the two Orders dated 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 to all the 340 Apartment Owners, irrespective of the fact as to whether they have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint or not. This Commission has rightly directed that the benefit of the Orders dated 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 be confined only to the 66 Apartment Owners. The Review Application is, therefore, dismissed.
As the Review Application filed by the Complainants/Decree Holders for enlarging the scope of the benefit of the Orders dated 19.03.2014 and 03.11.2015 from 66 Apartment Owners to the remaining 274 Apartment Owners, has been dismissed and the Judgment Debtors have paid the amount to the Complainants who have filed the Original Petition No. 93 of 2004 before this Commission, I deem it appropriate that so far as the mistake, if any, in the calculation of the Compensation in terms of the Orders referred to above, be resolved by the Authorised Representative of the Judgment Debtors and Decree Holders by holding a meeting on the mutually agreed date, time and place. If, however, the issue is not resolved between the Parties, liberty is granted to approach this Commission by filing appropriate Application. (Paras 6, 7 & 8)
Result: Review Application along with all Interim Applications dismissed.
ORDER
R. K. Agrawal, President—Original Petition No. 93 / 2004 (Complaint) had been filed by 66 Apartment Owners of Ambience Island against Raj Singh Gehlot and three others before this Commission purporting to be filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it stood at the relevant time. This fact could also be seen in Paragraph 1 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 by which Order this Commission decided the Complaint. For ready reference Para 1 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 is reproduced below:-
* “The grievance of 66 Flat Owners of Ambience Island Apartment, the complainants, has two prongs against its Builder, Promoter, Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot, who represents Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Firstly, the OPs 1, 2 & 3 did not install the full numbers of Elevators, as promised and piled on the agony of the Flat Owners, by not maintaining the already installed lifts throughout the Apartment Complex and more particularly, in Block Nos. C, E, F and H, by M/s. Scan Elevators, OP4.”
2. While disposing off the Original Petition No. 93 / 2004, this Commission directed that cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to each of the 66 Complainants. For ready reference Para 35 of the Order dated 19.03.2014 is reproduced below:-
“35. The OPs 1, 2 and 3 are directed to maintain the lifts every day, month and year, within a period of 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, they are liable to pay penalty of Rs. 15,000/- each, for Blocks C, E, F and H, per month. They are directed to maintain the record, in this context. Liability, if any, shall be saddled upon them if there is any accident or mishap. We also impose costs of Rs.5,000/- each, to be paid to each of the 66 complainants, which be paid, within 90 days, else, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a., till realization.”
3. Thereafter Execution Application No.7/2014 was filed by the Decree Holders / Complainants for Execution of the Order, which was disposed off by this Commission vide Order dated 03.11.2015. A plea was raised by the Complainants that the Apartment complex in question has 343 apartments and 340 apartment owners, where most of the owners/Complainants are senior citizens and the said Order dated 19.03.2014 will apply to all the residents as if they were 345 Decree Holders and full amount has not been paid in respect of 345 Residents. This issue was dealt in Para 4 of the Order dated 03.11.2015 and it was specifically mentioned that the relief was granted to 66 Complainants/Decree Holders only and will not apply to persons who have not approached this Commission at all. For ready reference, Para Nos. 4 and 8 of the Order dated 03.11.2015 are reproduced below:
R.A. No. 315/2015
4. Against the Order dated 19.03.2014 by which the Original Petition No. 93 / 2004 had been decided and the Order dated 01.05.2014 whereby the Review Application No. 74 / 2014 preferred by the Judgment Debtors had been dismissed, Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot and Another, Judgment Debtors approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 7171 – 7172 of 2014, which was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2014. The Review Application No. 315 / 2015 seeking review of the Order dated 03.11.2015, i.e., the Order passed in Execution Application No. 7 / 2014, had been filed by the Decree Holders/ Applicants stating therein that the Order dated 19.03.2014 would be applicable to all the 340 Apartment Owners as it was a Joint Complaint on behalf of Ambience Island Apartment Owners and not 66 Apartment Owners only and the observation made by this Commission in the Order dated 03.11.2015 is incorrect and has to be reviewed.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the Order dated 19.03.2014 passed in Original Petition No. 93 / 2004 and Order dated 03.11.2015 passed in Execution Application No. 7 / 2014.
6. From a perusal of the Order dated 19.03.2014, I find that the Complaint had been filed by 66 Apartment Owners only and it is not c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
