BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 417 of 2015
Date of institution: 20.08.2015
Date of Decision: 01.03.2016
Smt. Sudha Anand wife of Shri R.N. Anand, resident of 4556 MIG (S), Sector 70, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Special Secretary, Punjab Urban Development, Mini Secretariat, Punjab, UT Chandigarh.
2. The Estate Officer GMADA, PUDA Bhawan, Mohali.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person alongwith her authorised representative Shri R.N. Anand.
OPs ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
- Issue fresh allotment letter after making corrections.
- Refund the excess amount charged as per penal rate mentioned in the allotment letter.
- refund the amount spent on completing the incomplete house .
- to execute the conveyance deed without further delay.
- To decide the illegally passed orders of Estate Officer, Chief Administrator, Additional Chief Administrator and Special Secretary.
- To pay her exemplary amount for harassment, deficiency in service and costs of litigation.
The complainant who is 72 years of age has filed the present complaint through her husband and authorised representative. As per the advertisement issued by the OP No.2, the tentative price of House No.4556 MIG (S) Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali) was Rs.6,30,000/- but at the time of allotment the OP No.2 arbitrarily raised the cost to Rs.8,05,400/-. On the representation of the complainant to the then Minister was pleased to decrease the cost by Rs.50,000/-. But OP No.2 in 1998 issued fabricated allotment letter by intentionally adding Rs.50,000/- which was decreased by the Hon’ble Minister. The complainant deposited Rs.2,11,395/- being 25% of the price and one installment and took over the possession after executing hire purchase agreement. The remaining amount of the house in question was to be paid in 156 monthly installments spread over a period of 13 years starting from September, 1998. The complainant did not deposit any installment because of which the house in question was resumed by the OP No.2 on 27.11.2003 and 10% of the price of the house was forfeited. The complainant filed a complaint No.297 of 2000 in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh against the enhancement of cost of the house and regarding sub standard material used in the house. The DCF, Chandigarh dismissed the complaint vide order dated 06.11.2007 by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. Inspite of this the complainant did not deposit the installments and the complainant filed appeal No.823 of 2007 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh against the orders of DCF, Chandigarh. Again the appeal of the complainant was dismissed by the Hon’ble UT State Commission vide orders dated 08.04.2008 without any cost. Aggrieved with the orders of Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant filed revision before the Hon’ble National Commission. The complainant also filed an execution petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2012. The appeal of the petitioner before the Hon’ble National Commission was also disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2014. However, while disposing of the appeal, the Hon’ble National Commission directed to respondents to issue proper receipts for the amounts, if any, received from the complainant after 20.05.2010. On 05.02.2015 it was brought the notice of Hon’ble National Commission that the appeal preferred by the complainant had been decided by the Addl. Chief Administrator, GMADA way back on 29.12.2011 wherein it was found that a sum of Rs.27,52,603/- was still outstanding against the complainant before conveyance deed of the flat could be executed in favour of the complainant. However, the complainant challenged the order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Administrator GMADA on the ground that it has not been passed by taking into consideration certain additional amounts, which though not due under letter of allotment. Accordingly, the Hon’ble National Commission vide interim order dated 16.07.2015 asked the Special Secretary i.e. OP No.1 to take a final decision on the pleas of the complainant. The speaking order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the OP No.1 has been considered by the Hon’ble National Commission and the complainant thereafter has filed the present complaint alleging that the amounts shown in the computation sheet Ex.C-8 are not in accordance with the factual position as some of the amounts which were not due as per terms of allotment letter have also been reflected in the computation sheet showing the total payable amount of Rs.13,64,061/- by way of penal interest. The complainant has in the present complaint challenged the excess amount of Rs.13,93,263/- claimed by the OP No.2 as per computation sheet as well as handwritten statement of account submitted by the complainant during the course of proceedings and prayed for refund of the said amount besides praying for issuance of fresh allotment letter and execution of conveyance deed without further delay and other compensation for harassment and deficiency in service.
2. Notice issued to both the OPs were duly served on them but none appeared for them. Both the OPs were accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.12.2015.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.
4. We have heard the complainant and gone through the pleadings and evidence on record.
5. The complainant in order to prove her case has admitted all the long drawn litigation between the parties which has various rounds before multiple benches/Foras regarding pricing of the flat, resumption of the flat on account of non payment of installlments, restoration of the flat with the intervention of multiple benches/Foras; defective/deficiencies in the construction of the flat, payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as awarded by the Hon’ble UT State Commission etc. The last document relied upon by the complainant is interim order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in MA No.299/2014 (directions); IA/8740/2014 (substitution) in First Appeal No.259 of 2013 which she has received from the Hon’ble National Commission vide letter dated 03.03.2015. The perusal of the said order clearly shows that the whole gamut of litigation between the parties pertaining to the subject matter of Flat No.4556 MIG (S) Sector 70, Mohali has been considered by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission directed OP No.1 to pass a speaking order within three months and determine the final amount, if any, yet to be paid by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Thereafter the matter was fixed for 16.07.2015 for further directions. The complainant has not produced any order subsequent thereof. Therefore, in order to reach out to the truth and finality of the issue pending before the Hon’ble National Commission, we have retrieved from the site of the Hon’ble National Commission the final order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission. As per the Hon’ble National Commission the order dated 05.02.2015 has been complied with by OP No.1 and they have submitted the final speaking order dated 21.07.2015 before the Hon’ble National Commission. As per the speaking order still an amount of Rs.13,64,061/- was pending outstanding against the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission has considered the speaking order dated 21.07.2015 of OP No.1 and came to the conclusion that the amounts payable by the complainant on account of revision of cost of the flat or any interest on installment in terms of letter of allotment dated 11.08.1998 or the question of restoration of cancelled flat are the questions neither within the domain of the Consumer Fora nor were raised in the original complaint filed by the complainant. However, the complainant has been given the liberty to question the correctness, in accordance with law, of the orders dated 21.07.2015 passed by OP No.1.
6. The complainant in the present complaint has largely challenged the computation sheet Ex.C-7 and her own handwritten statement showing illegal charging of Rs. 13,93,263/- by OP No.2. However, she has not placed on record copy of the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by OP No.1.
7. As per the complainant she is in possession of the property in question and in the present complaint she has only one grievance of illegal charging of interest amounting to Rs.13,93,263/- as per her own handwritten statement and interest shown in the computation chart Ex.C-7. The Hon’ble National Commission in Milan Barot & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Haridat Bhatt & Anr. III (2013) CPJ 141 has held that where there is a business to business dispute, the matter is to be adjudicated by a civil court and not by consumer Forums. In the present case, the complainant is in possession of property and the dispute raised in the complaint is regarding illegal charging of Rs.13,93,263/- on account of interest, in our opinion is a business to business dispute and matter can be adjudicated by a civil court and not before this Forum.
8. The Consumer Foras have limited jurisdiction and conduct the proceedings in a summary manner based on the principle of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) has clearly spelt out the status of Consumer Foras and held that the Consumer Protection Act provides for business to consumer disputes and not business to business disputes.
9. Respectfully following the above ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case, the present dispute is a dispute between two parties pertaining to settlement of accounts. Therefore, this matter is to be adjudicated in a civil court and not in a consumer Fora since it is clearly a business to business dispute.
10. Therefore, without going into the merits of the complaint, the complaint being not maintainable before this Forum is hereby returned to the complainant with the liberty to approach civil court or any appropriate forum in accordance with law for settlement of the dispute, if so desired. The complaint alongwith documents be returned to the complainant and a photocopy of the same be kept for record. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 01, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
