Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/39/2024

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA - Opp.Party(s)

MRIGANK SHARMA

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	39 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	19.04.2024
Date of Decision	:	04.07.2024

 

 

 

1. M/S Singla Builders and promoters Limited through its Directors, having office at Plot No.1265, Sector -82, Industrial Area, Near RTO office, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab - 140308, Mobile No.7087001219, email info@sbpgroup.in.
2. Krishan Kumar Son of Sh. Lt. Mewa Singh Director of Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd (SBP Group), Sh. Krishan Kumar, presently having office at Plot No.1265, Sector -82, Industrial Area, Near RTO office, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab - 140308. Mobile No. 7087001219, Email: info@sbpgroup.in.
3. Nxtep Maintain Infraz Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, Sh. Ajay Gakhar, having registered office at 523, 5th Floor, Block D& E Chandigarh City Centr, VIP Road, Zirakpur (Mohali), Punjab, Mobile No.9779555565. Email:crmnxtep.maintaininfraz@outlook.com,

hmnxtep.maintaininfraz@gmail.com.

4. Nxtep Maintain Infraz Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Sh. B.Κ. Aggarwal, having registered office at 523, 5th Floor, Block D&E Chandigarh City Centre, VIP Road, Zirakpur (Mohali), Punjab, Mobile NO. 9317616101,

Email:    crmnxtep.maintaininfraz@outlook.com,

              hmnxtep.maintaininfraz@gmail.com

 

All through their authorized signatory Sh. Krishan Kumar.

 

…Revision Petitioners/opposite parties

 

V e r s u s

 

Ashok Kumar Malhotra son of Sh. Satpal Malhotra, resident of SBP Homes, Tower-4, Flat No.177/2, Sector 126, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-140301, Mobile No.9876588844.

Email: ashokmalhotra2010@gmail.com.

….Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:-

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

  

Present:-     Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the revision petitioners (on VC)

                   Sh.Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate for respondent (on VC).

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

 

                   This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners /opposite parties challenging the interim order dated  11.12.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh  (in short the District Commission) in consumer complaint bearing no.579 of 2022, vide which the revision petitioners were directed not to collect maintenance charges from any of the occupant including complainant unless and until ‘Complete Occupation Certificate’ is obtained from concerned competent Authority. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“…… We have heard the Ld. Counsel’s for the parties as well as gone through the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,  and partial completion certificate issued by Municipal Council Kharar vide memo No. 99 dated 28.01.2020.

It has been observed that office of Municipal Council Kharar has issued the ‘Partial Completion Certificate’ to the OP vide memo No. 99 dated 28.01.2020. ‘Partial Completion Certificate’ does not or cannot be termed to be equivalent to ‘Complete Occupancy Certificate’. Therefore, the application of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed not to collect maintenance charges from any of the occupant including complainant unless and until ‘Complete Occupation Certificate’ is obtained from concerned competent Authority.

To come up for filing replication to the written version of OPs on 21.02.2024.…….”

2.           Alongwith this revision petition, the petitioners have also filed application bearing no.402 of 2024 for condonation of delay of 35 days (as per office 31 days)  in filing  this revision petition, on the ground that after receipt of copy of the order impugned dated 11.12.2023, the same was sent to the legal team for appropriate decision. After discussing the matter with the counsel concerned, decision was taken to file this revision petition, whereafter, papers were collected and provided to the counsel.  It has been averred that thus delay of 35 days (as per office 31 days)  in this procedure took place, which is neither willful nor intentional. 
3.           Arguments of the parties on this application for condonation of delay of 35 days (as per office 31 days)  in filing  this revision petition and also the main revision petition heard.   
4.           First coming to the application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition, it may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized the importance of substantive rights of the parties and has held that when technicalities of the procedural law are pitted against rights of private parties, the former should yield to the latter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raheem Shah & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023, decided on 24.07.2023, under similar circumstances held as under:-

 "4. This Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as hereunder:

"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on `merits'. The expression `sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal."

 

5.           Under above circumstances, this Commission is of the opinion that in the present case also, the question of condonation of delay should be construed liberally rather than taking a parochial approach, as result of which,  the litigation between the parties probably would come to an end much earlier after decision on the merits of their rival contention, rather than involving into rounds of litigations just with a view to get this delay condoned. Even otherwise,  there is sufficient  cause explained by the revision petitioners to condone the said delay in filing this revision petition. Resultantly, this application for condonation of delay of 35 days (as per office 31 days) in filing this revision petition stands allowed and the said delay is condoned.  This application stands disposed of accordingly.
6.           Now coming to the order dated 11.12.2023, whereby the revision petitioners/opposite parties were directed by the District Commission not to collect maintenance charges from any of the occupant including complainant unless and until ‘Complete Occupation Certificate’ is obtained from concerned competent Authority, it may be stated here that it has been noticed by this Commission that these findings have been given by the District Commission while relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission  in one of the similar case titled as Madhusudhan Reddy R. and J. Shanthamma and others V/s VDB Whitefield Development Pvt. Ltd. and Others, in CC No.763/2020, decided on 25.01.2022. It is significant to mention here that we have gone through the observations made in Madhusudhan Reddy R. and J. Shanthamma and others case (supra)_and found that the Hon’ble National Commission has held that before obtaining occupation/completion certificate, only the complainant therein will not be liable to pay maintenance and nowhere in this judgment it has been held that the other similar located occupants/residents of the said project will also not be liable to pay the maintenance charges. Thus, in our considered view, the District Commission fell into an error in interpreting the findings given by the Hon’ble National Commission in Madhusudhan Reddy R. and J. Shanthamma and others case (supra), qua giving relief of nonpayment of maintenance charges in the instant case, to other occupants of the project in question and rather it should have been passed in favour of the complainant only. Even otherwise, it was not a class action suit filed by the complainant on behalf of  all the occupants/residents of the project in question, which inclined the District Commission to pass such an order. Thus, in our mind, to this extent, the order of the District Commission needs modification.
7.           For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition stands partly allowed. The order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the District Commission stands modified to the extent that the opposite parties are  directed not to collect maintenance charges from the respondent/complainant unless and until ‘Complete Occupation Certificate’ is obtained from concerned competent Authority. The remaining findings given and directions passed, if any, by the District Commission in the order impugned dated 11.12.2023 shall remain intact. However, we refrain from expressing any opinion one way or the other on merits of the case as well and any observation made in this order shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
8.           The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 22.07.2024 for further proceedings.
9.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10.           The revision file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this  revision petition, be sent back immediately.    
11.           Parties be informed about this order, through their Advocate(s)/ Counsel, on their mobile phone/whatsapp/email.

Pronounced

04.07.2024

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

 

Rg.