Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 22219 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2020
Mr.Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate, for the Appellant
The judgment established that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission under the C.P. Act is not ousted with the promulgation of the RERA, and the remedies sought/availed by the respondents under the C.P. Act overlap with the provisions of the RERA, allowing for concurrent remedies under various statutes.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Real Estate Development - Companies Act, 1956, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2013 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2013, and their applicability to the case. The court highlighted the concurrent remedies available to the allottees under various statutes and the absence of conflict between the two acts. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission under the C.P. Act is not ousted with the promulgation of the RERA, and the remedies sought/availed by the respondents under the C.P. Act overlap with the provisions of the RERA. The court also referred to specific judgments and legal provisions to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a real estate developer, sought to quash orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, related to a complaint filed by respondents seeking a refund and compensation for a commercial unit purchase. The petitioner raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission and the applicability of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the specific remedy of appeal provided under Section 19 of the C.P. Act was available to the petitioner, and the petition was not maintainable. The court clarified that there was no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission, the applicability of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2013, and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission under the C.P. Act is not ousted with the promulgation of the RERA, and the remedies sought/availed by the respondents under the C.P. Act overlap with the provisions of the RERA. The court emphasized the availability of concurrent remedies to the allottees under various statutes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the court clarified that there was no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - The petitioner is stated to be a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short Act), dealing in the development of real estate in various states of India, including the State of Punjab.
2. This writ petition has been filed, seeking quashing of order dated 22.11.2017 as well as order dated 23.05.2019, Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short SCDRC).
3. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short C.P.Act), was filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, seeking a refund of the amount of Rs.18,11,578/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, besides compensation. It is averred in the complaint that the present petitioner/builder had come up with the project known as City Centre at Kharar-Landran Road, District Mohali and had offered units/shops for sale in the said project. Respondents No. 2 and 3, sought to purchase the said units, as detailed in the complaint, for the amount detailed therein as well. Application form dated 21.09.2010 along with the requisite cheques was submitted by them. Shop No. 33, Upper Ground Floor (UGF) was allotted on 23.11.2010 for the total sum of Rs.18, 11, 578/- (Rs.17, 60, 593/- as the Basic Sale Price and Rs.50,985/- as service tax). Loan of Rs.12,50,000/- was obtained by respondents No. 2 and 3, at the rate of 13.5% per annum out of which Rs.10 lakhs stood disbursed to the present petitioner. Possession of the unit was to be delivered within 3 years from the date of booking/allotment, but the petitioner has claimed to have failed to hand over, not only the possession thereof within the stipulated period but it is also claimed by the respondents that no development work was carried out by the petitioner at the site.
4. Complaint was resisted by the present petitioner. The petitioner raised an objection that respondents no. 2 and 3 were not consumers as defined under the C.P. Act, as the unit was purchased for a commercial purpose to run tuition business and not for personal use. Respondents no. 2 and 3, were also stated to be defaulters and that the alleged period of three (03) years for delivery of possession was tentative and was to run from the date of receipt of all requisite sanctions/approvals/permission from the competent authority/authorities. Therefore, time it was contended, was not the essence of the contract for delivery of possession. Reliance was also placed by the petitioner upon the arbitration clause in the allotment letter. Receipt of Rs. 18, 11, 578/-by the petitioner from respondents no. 2 and 3 for the purchase of the commercial unit was, however, admitted.
5. Learned SCDRC, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2017, Annexure P-3, held respondents no. 2 and 3, to be entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The petitioner was directed to comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of copy of order dated 20.11.2017.
6. The petitioner, admittedly did not challenge order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned SCDRC, before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (for short NCDRC).
7. Respondents no. 2 and 3, filed an execution application, wherein bailable warrants vide order dated 23.5.2019, Annexure P-4, have been issued against the directors of the petitioner company. Present petition was filed in August 2019.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset was faced with the question of maintainability of this writ petition, as the impugned order dated 22.11.2017, has been passed by the SCDRC and a specific remedy of appeal is specifically provided under the C.P. Act. As per section 19 of the C.P. Act, an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the NCDRC is clearly provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that as the learned SCDRC had no authority or jurisdict
