STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 28.06.2017 Reserved On : 04.11.2024 Date of decision : 03.12.2024

1. Estate Officer, Bathinda Development Authority/PUDA, BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.

2. Chief Administrator, Bathinda Development Authority/PUDA, BDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.

….Appellants/OPs Versus Mehak D/o Sh. Arun Narang;

Arun Narang S/o Sh. Ved Parkash, both R/o Street No.23, Gaushala Road, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.

….Respondents/Complainants First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda in CC No.238 of

2015.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Appellants : Ms. Twinkle Verma, Advocate for Ms. Swati Dayalan, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Ankush Verma, Advocate.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off total Seven First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.492 of 2017, First Appeal No.490 of 2017, First Appeal No.491 of 2017, First Appeal No.493 of 2017, First Appeal No.494 of 2017, First Appeal No.495 of 2017 and First Appeal No.496 of 2017 as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.561 of 2022.

Misc. Application No.1414 of 2017 (Addl. Evidence):

2. Said Application has been filed by the Appellants for seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. It has been mentioned in the Application that inadvertently the documents Annexures A/2 to A/8 could not be produced before the District Commission. It has been prayed that said documents be permitted to be produced on record by way of additional evidence.

3. Heard.

4. For the reasons recorded in the Application, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on the record as Annexures A/2 to A/8.

Main Case

5. Initially, the Complainants namely Mehak and Arun Narang had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer:

i) The OPs be directed to refund the entire amount so deposited by the Complainants along with interest;

ii) To pay 10,000/- per month w.e.f. March, 2013 to 2015;

₹

iii) To pay compensation of 1 lac; and ₹

iv) To pay litigation expenses of 20,000/-.

₹

6. Upon issuance of notices to the Appellants/OPs, they had appeared before the District Commission through Counsel and filed their written version, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. The other averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

7. By considering the contents of the Complaint and Reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 10.01.2017. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-28 & 29 is reproduced as under:

“28. For the reasons recorded above, this Complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the balance/remaining amount of the Complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. The interest on the balance amount will be payable w.e.f.

02.12.2014 till the date of payment.

29. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

8. Said order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/OPs by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.

9. There was a delay of 119 days in filing of the Appeal. Misc. Application No.1412 of 2017 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said Application along with Appeal was dismissed by this Commission on the ground o