PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President, Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member and Kiran Sibal, Member
Ashok Manocha – Appellant
versus
Ansal Lotous Melange Projects Pvt.
Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.235 of 2021
Decided on 14.7.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
No consumer dispute is made out between Appellant and Respondents since Appellant is no more the consumer of Respondents

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41) – First Appeal against Order passed by Distt. Commission - Appellant had booked shop in Mohali for earning his livelihood, which was allotted to him on consideration amt. of Rs.23,64,488/- Appellant made the full payment to Respondent – - Out of Court settlement happened between the parties and shop was handed over on 20.12.2018 - Appellant disposed of the shop to Mrs. Palwinder Kaur – Complaint filed seeking direction to Respondents to make payment of Rs.3,32,837/- along with interest @18% p.a. per settlement – Distt. Forum dismissed the complaint as no consumer dispute is made out between Appellant and Respondents since Appellant is no more the consumer of Respondents; before selling the shop to Ms. Palwinder Kaur, it was incumbent upon Appellant to get the things cleared – Per this Commission, Appellant has no cause of action - Reasoning of the Distt. Commission while dismissing the complaint, is based on appreciation of facts and law.

Held: Relevant brief facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner had booked one shop No.22, GF in Ansal City Centre, Mohali for earning his livelihood by running his business, which was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 03.11.2009 on consideration of Rs.23,64,488/-. He has made the full payment to the OPs. It is further averred that at the time of handing over the possession, the OPs calculated the interest @8% p.a. i.e. Rs.4,25,375/- till the delivery of possession vide letter dated 20.12.2020 for not providing the possession of the shop in question as per fixed time. OPs also agreed to pay Rs.3,32,837/- in three equal installments till 31.03.2019, after adjusting Security (IFSD) of Rs.50,000/- and Income Tax (TDS) Rs.42,537/-. Out of Court settlement was also done between the parties on 27.05.2016 and shop was handed over on 20.12.2018 but till today no payment has been made in the shape of installment. It is averred that settlement was arrived between the parties to avoid further litigation between the parties but the OPs failed to make the payment of Rs.3,32,837/- in three equal installments. OPs also did not deposit the TDS amount of Rs.42,537/-, against the PAN of the complainant with the concerned authorities. Notice was served upon the OPs, but they did not reply. Thereafter, the complainant has disposed of the above shop to one Mrs. Palwinder Kaur on 24.11.2020. The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service, therefore, he has filed the consumer complaint seeking direction to the OPs to make the payment of Rs.3,32,837/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 01.04.2019 till its realization.

Findings of the District Commission

4. Learned District Commission, after going through the pleadings and going through the evidence annexed with the complaint dismissed the complaint in limine by observing that no consumer dispute is made out between the complainant and O.Ps since the complainant is no more the consumer of the O.Ps and before selling the shop in question to Ms.Palwinder Kaur, it was incumbent upon the complainant to get the things cleared from the OPs. Further observed that he is not seeking possession rather seeking recovery of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,32,837/- along with interest.

10. In view of the above, the complainant has no cause of action. Otherwise also, the claim for refund cannot be given because the complaint itself is beyond limitation because settlement was arrived between the parties in 2016 and the complaint was filed in the year 2021 i.e. beyond the period of two years.

11. Further as per the provision of Section 36(2) of the CP Act, the District Commission may admit or reject the complaint. The complaint was filed on 31.03.2021 and the impugned order was passed on 07.05.2021 and it is clear that the complainant was aware about the pendency of his complaint and on earlier dates i.e. 09.04.2021 and 16.04.2021, his Advocate had appeared before the District Commission. It is the duty of the complainant or his counsel to appear on each and every date of hearing through the mode, which District Commission follows. If he has filed the complaint during the pandemic of Covid-19 then certainly he can pursue his case before the District Commission on the date fixed. So he was granted opportunity of being heard but he did not appear. The District Commission in its order has specifically stated that after perusing the complaint minutely, found that neither consumer dispute is made out between the complainant and OPs since the complainant is no more the consumer of the OPs and had already sold his rights to Smt.Palwinder Kaur and after sale of the shop, he has no relation with it. Therefore, the District Commission has decided the admissibility of the complaint and decided the complaint, being without merit. The reasoning of the District Commission while dismissing the complaint, is based on appreciation of facts and law, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 10 & 11)

Result: Appeal being without merits is dismissed in limine.