Delhi

StateCommission

A/553/2015

MS. SWEETY BHALLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JAY ENN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :05.02.2018

Date of Decision :07.02.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.553/2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Ms. Sweety Bhalla,

D/o. Shri S.K. Bhalla,

C/o. House No.16170,

Sheet No.2,

Joshi Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.                                                                                     ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

M/s. Jay Enn. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

17/A56 Trivani Plaza,

WEA Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.                                                                                     …….Respondent

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

 

Present:           Shri S.K. Bhalla, Counsel for the appellant.

                        Shri Nepal Singh, Counsel for the respondent.

 PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

 

          Order dt. 06.10.2015 passed by the Distt. Consumer Disputing Redressal Forum in CC No.217/2010 in the matter of M/s. Sweety Bhalla vs Jay Enn Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the complaint observing as under:-

We are therefore, of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not in a position to adjudicate the controversy in issue as all the allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied by the complainant and it is not possible to adjudicate said controversy on the basis of the affidavits filed on record and the summary procedure provided, 

 

M/s. Sweety Bhalla, for short appellant, has filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against M/s. Jay Kay Engineering Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as respondent, praying for setting aside the impugned order as also claiming the relief claimed in the original complaint.

 

          Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.

 

          The respondents were engaged in the construction of  a multi storey flats at the site at 16/67-68, Gali No.2-3, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and after the completion of the construction the appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a flat on the first floor of the property. The  agreement was executed on 10.07.2009. Subsequently the sale deed was executed on 18.12.2009 and consequently the possession of the first floor flat was handed over to the appellant.

 

          Since there were a lot of deficiencies were noted, the appellant approached the respondents to cure the defects but when no response was received, the appellant/ complainant served them with a legal notice but despite  the said notice no solution was afforded by the respondents.

 

          Case was filed by the appellant before the Distt. Fora. The Distt. Fora observing that complicated question of facts and law since are involved in this case which cannot be disposed of based on the evidence filed by way of affidavit, issued a direction returning the complaint to file it before the authority enjoying the jurisdiction therefor.

 

          Consequently this appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Act alongwith an application for condonation of delay. In the first instance we may deal with the application for condonation of delay. The delay being only of eleven days, we order condoning the delay.

 

          Coming to the merit of the case, the appellant has taken the ground that the ld. Distt. Fora has erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in them.

 

The matter was listed before us for final hearing  on 05.02.2017 when he counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have passed the records of the case and given our careful consideration to the subject.

         

In the first place we are not in agreement with the observation of the Distt. Fora that the issues involved in the case cannot be disposed of by the Consumer Fora. The issue in our view can be adjudicated by the Consumer For a, based on the evidence by way of affidavit.

         

The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of D. Shankar vs. Gopi Agencies and Ors reported in IV (2010) CPJ 72 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:-

 

“Adjudication of consumer complaints in summary proceedings is based on preponderance of publicities and not on application of rigorous provisions of evidence enjoining proof beyond doubt.”

 

          Having regard to this we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Distt. Fora for deciding the complaint on merit. Since the matter is very old we request the Distt. Fora to dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within six months. Parties to the case are directed to appear before the Distt. Fora on 28.02.2018 at 10.30 a.m.

           

Copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the ld. Distt. Fora for information.

 

          File be consigned to records.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)