Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 4366
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Daya Chaudhary, President, Simarjot Kaur, Member
Raman Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Raj Davinder Athwal – Respondent
First Appeal No.142 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: R.P. Singh
The District Consumer Commission cannot issue pre-emptive directions for the production of documents, evidence, and property lists at the initial stage of admitting a complaint, as such power must be balanced against the procedural mandate for the opposite party to first submit its version of the case.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 38(3) and (6) - Procedure on admission of complaint - Preliminary stage directions - District Commission order requiring production of extensive project documents, property lists, and encumbrance status from opposite parties before filing of written version - Legality of such orders. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 38 - Burden of proof - The onus of proving the consumer complaint lies with the complainant - District Commission cannot assume the role of an investigator to collect evidence for the complainant at the initial stage bypassing established discovery procedures. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Against an order passed by the District Commission in a pending Consumer Complaint directing the Opposite Parties to produce voluminous records including project licenses, site plans, and lists of movable/immovable assets at the preliminary stage, the Appellant (Opposite Party No.5) filed the present appeal, contending that the District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural fairness as the case was at the initial stage and the written version had not yet been filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Commission acted in an over-zealous manner by pre-emptively directing the collection of evidence and records from the parties and non-parties (statutory authorities) before the exchange of pleadings, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Such directions are outside the scope of Section 38 at the preliminary stage.
Issues: Whether the District Commission is empowered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to issue comprehensive discovery and production directions to the OPs at the initial stage of admitting a complaint, before the receipt of written version and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission held that procedural fairness under the Act requires the complaint to proceed upon the exchange of pleadings and evidence. Directing the production of assets lists and third-party records at the preliminary stage ignores the adversarial burden of proof and the specific procedure laid down under Section 38, hence such directions are set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed; directions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order set aside.
First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in Consumer Complaint No.549 of 2024.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Appellant : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Service dispensed with vide order dated 06.11.2025
For Respondents No.3&4 : None
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
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The Appellant/OP No.5 has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.549 of 2024.
Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present consumer complaint may kindly be allowed in favour of the complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 be directed to:
(i) refund Rs.35,00,000/- to the complainant along with simple interest @12% p.a. with effect from 31.08.2016 till the date of its realization.
(ii) To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards the mental harassment caused to the complainant due to the act and conduct of the OP No.1 to 4 I not delivering physical possession of the flat within time despite making all the payments;
(iii) To pay special compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as the OP No.1 to 4 have sold complainant’s flat to OP No.5 in an illegal manner;
(iv) Pay Rs.1,50,000/- as cost of litigation;
(v) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances narrated herein above.”
Vide order dated 29.11.2024, the District Commission had admitted the Complaint and the notices were issued to the OPs. The order dated 29.11.2024 is reproduced as under :-
“The complaint be registered.
Admitted.
Let notice be issued to the Opposite Parties for 18.03.2025, through registered AD Cover, whatsapp & email IDs, if available with a direction to file reply and evidence/affidavit within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice with advance copy to the counsel opposite.
Upon hearing the counsel for the complainant(s) and upon going through the material placed on record, we direct the opposite parties to produce the following documents, duly authenticated, before this Commission along with reply:-
i. Registration Certificate of the project with the competent authority.
ii. Copy of requisite license issued by the competent authority under Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
iii. Change of Land Use (CLU) pertaining to the project in question.
iv. Letter of Intent (LOI).
v. Copy of approved site plan of the project.
vi. Completion Certificate of the project.
vii. Latest photographs of the site/unit in dispute.
viii. Current list of Managing Director/Director(s) of the Company.
ix. Detail of Bank Accounts of the Company.
x. List of properties both moveable and immovable of the company which can be attached in execution of the decree.
xi. Whether the project and unit in question is under encumbrance. If yes, give details.
We also direct Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Chief Administrator to furnish the entire information and relevant documents pertaining to the project in question such as CLU, License, Hypothecation of plots etc., along with its reply.
Counsel for the complainant is also directed to sent copy of t
