ORDER

With

Case No.SC/19/A/160/2024

DILIP KUMAR MITRA & ANR. APPLLANTS

Versus

M/S.ROYAL REGENCY & OTHRRS RESPONDENTS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. As these two Appeals present the identical Order, they are entwined for adjudication and shall be disposed of by the following consolidated judgment dated 20.05.2024 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.8 of 2022.

2. Both the appeals being No.A/160/2024 and A/164/2024 have been preferred assailing the same Order dated 20.05.2024 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.8 of 2022.

3. At the very outset, we would like to reproduce the Order assailed in these Appeals which runs as follows :-

“Date - 20.05.2024

Both parties are present.

The case is fixed for Expert Engineer’s report. No. Expert report is received.

At this stage, a petition is filed on behalf of the OP-1/2(Builders) for hearing on the maintainability point as raised in the Written Version. Both Consumer Case Nos-5/2021 and 8/2022 are taken up together for disposal on maintainability point by this common order as facts are common in both the cases.

Heard both sides.

The Complainant being the land owner in Consumer Case – 5/2021 and flat owner in Consumer Case – 8/2022 have filed the instant cases against the OP-Builders with allegation of deficiency in service with regard to quantity, quality, standard and services of the entire apartment including their portion also. Prior to the filing of this cases the Complainant filed Title Suit No.being OS No-1/2021 against the OP-Builders before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhargram for declaration that the respective deed of sale in favour of the flat owners purported to have been executed by the OP-Builders without any endorsement by the Complainant are illegal and void.

If the ownership of the flat owner in respect of the apartment in question is sub-judice before the Civil Court the Commission having a limited jurisdiction cannot entertain the consumer dispute between the parties with regard to the deficiency in service of the apartment which is ancillary/consequential relief interrelated to and interdependent on the main issue of the pending Civil Suit. It is purely a civil dispute between the parties and the aggrieved party is at liberty to raise this issue before the concerned Civil Court with regard to the discharge, satisfaction and enforcement of agreement for sale and deed of conveyance if the respective title of the flat owner is found to be valid and legal.

Accordingly in view of the pendency of the above mentioned Civil Suit the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for relief as prayed for in these cases as it will amount to interference with the proceeding of the concerned Civil Court.

From this point of view the Commission holds that Consumer Cases - 5/2021 and 8/2022 are not maintainable before this Commission at this stage in the present form and law and both the Complaint Cases stand dismissed.

However, both parties are given liberty to agitate all the issues relating to instant Consumer Cases before the concerned Civil Court by way of suitable amendment of the plaint and Written Statement.”

4. On scrutiny of the impugned Order, we find that prior to filing of the Consumer Complaint No.8 of 2022 by the Appellant/Complainant, one Title Suit No.OS-1 of 2021 was filed against Opposite Party/Builders before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhargram for declaration that the Deed executed in favour of the Complainant was illegal and void without endorsement of the Appellant/Complainant in respect of Complaint Case No.5 of 2021.

5. Ld. District Forum dismissed both the Consumer Complaints being No.5 of 2021 and 8 of 2022 because of the pendency of the Civil Suit before the Jurisdictional Civil Court.

6. Both the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in connection with Appeal Nos.160 of 2024 and 164 of 2024 as well as Ld. Counsel appears on behalf of Developer/Responde