Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that as per the representation made by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, the complainant purchased a plot bearing No. 133 measuring 200 square yards with specific boundaries out of khasra No. 69//13, 62//13/3, 14/1, 17 situated within the revenue estate of village: Kuliawal, Hadbast No. 178, within the locality of Ansal’s Bachittar Enclave and accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 executed sale deed bearing vasika No. 11303 dated 22.08.2012. Further alleges that a few months earlier, the complainant went to see the property and then Opposite Party No.4 met him at the site and obstructed the complainant from entering the aforesaid plot and that he will not allow the complainant to raise any construction over the same. The complainant also brought the sale deed to the notice of Opposite Party No.4 and told that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 has executed the sale deed of the said plot and at that time, Opposite Party No.4 told that there is dispute going on between the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 regarding the title and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have sold a defective plot to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant also approached the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and requested them to do the needful and allow him to raise the construction on the plot purchased by him, but the Opposite Parties have been delaying the matter on one pretext to another and hence, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have provided deficient services to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the damages of Rs.19 lakhs and the ops may be directed not to interfere in the property of the complainant i.e. plot.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint. However, despite filing the written reply of the main complaint, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of the complaint due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction stating that the complainant has purchased one plot bearing No. 133 measuring 200 square yards from the Opposite Parties and said plot is the subject matter of the present complaint admittedly the total sale consideration (i.e. value of service) of the apartment purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is Rs.5,80,000/- and compensation claimed is Rs.19 lac which are more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum (now Commission). Further submitted that as is also held in Quality Foils India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. bank of Madura “Valuation- It is the aggregate value of the goods and compensation or the aggregate value of the services as well as that of compensation that determines the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Fora- the intention of the Legislature is to give the Jurisdiction to the Consumer Fora based on the total ‘value’ of the goods and compensation, if any, or in other case, the value of the services and compensation if any. In view of this, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 and hence Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has contended that firstly, the application moved by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 may kindly be decided.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties on the miscellaneous application as well as on main complaint, perused the written arguments of the complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in application moved by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that he purchased a plot bearing No. 133 measuring 200 square yards with specific boundaries out of khasra No. 69//13, 62//13/3, 14/1, 17 situated within the revenue estate of village: Kuliawal, Hadbast No. 178, within the locality of Ansal’s Bachittar Enclave and accordingly, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 executed sale deed bearing vasika No. 11303 dated 22.08.2012, but lateron, on the site, Opposite Party No.4 met him and obstructed the complainant from entering the aforesaid plot and that he will not allow the complainant to raise any construction over the same. The complainant also brought the sale deed to the notice of Opposite Party No.4 and told that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 has executed the sale deed of the said plot and at that time, Opposite Party No.4 told that there is dispute going on between the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 regarding the title and Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have sold a defective plot to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant also approached the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and requested them to do the needful and allow him to raise the construction on the plot purchased by him, but the Opposite Parties have been delaying the matter on one pretext to another and hence, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have provided deficient services to the complainant.
9. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant in his complaint as well as in his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1 has himself deposed that a dispute is already going on between the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 regarding the title of the property and the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have sold a defective plot to the complainant knowing well that there is a dispute going on with regard to the same. Since the dispute is already pending between the parties regarding the title of the property in dispute for adjudication, we are of the view that it clearly becomes a case replete with the elements of fraud, cheating (by selling the plot in question by misrepresentation) and such disputes are certainly not adjudicable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies because the proceedings before the Consumer fora (now Commission) are summary in nature. In this case complicated questions of fact and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraphs, as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
10. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
12. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
