STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. | : | 04 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 28.01.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.02.2013 |
Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, 302, Dendera, The Nile, Gurgaon.
…… Revision Petitioners/Applicants
Versus
1. M/s Omaxe Ltd., SCO 143-144, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
2. M/s Omaxe Ltd., 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, through its Managing Director and Chairman.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
3. Mrs. Surender Nehra (deceased), through L.R. Sh. Sanjeev Nehra, resident of 2237, Sector 15C, Chandigarh
....Proforma Respondent/complainant
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Atul Nehra, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), passed in Miscellaneous Application No.225 of 2011, whereby, it (District Forum), dismissed two applications i.e. one for the condonation of delay, if any, in filing the application for impleadment, as a Party, and the other for impleadment as a Party, in the complaint, filed by the Revision Petitioners/ applicants.
2. The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint are that, the complainant/Proforma respondent no.3-Mrs. Surender Nehra (now deceased), was allotted an apartment, at Mohali, which was to be constructed by the Opposite Parties. Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.04.2005, was executed between Mrs. Surender Nehra (now deceased) and the Opposite Parties. The possession of apartment was to be delivered, to the complainant, on or before 27.11.2007 (infact 27.10.2007). It was also agreed to, between the Parties, that, in case, the possession of apartment, was not delivered, by the stipulated date, the Opposite Parties were to pay Rs. 5/- per square feet, per month, for the period of delay, as compensation. The possession of apartment was not delivered to the complainant, on or before 27.10.2007. The complainant sold the apartment, to the applicants/Revision Petitioners, namely Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal on 22.05.2009. The possession of apartment was delivered to the applicants/Revisions Petitioners, on 15.06.2009. On 23.05.2011, Mrs. Surender Nehra, complainant (now deceased), filed the complaint, praying that she be paid Rs.1,76,970/-, as compensation, on account of delay in delivery of possession.
3. During the pendency of complaint, Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, moved two applications i.e. one for the condonation of delay, if any, in filing the application, for impleadment as a Party, and the other for impleadment as a Party, in the complaint.
4. In the application, filed by the Revision Petitioners, for impleadment, as a Party to Consumer Complaint No.225 of 2011, it was stated that they, being the subsequent purchasers of the apartment, in question, were entitled to compensation, for delay, in delivery of possession of the same. It was further stated that earlier the Revision Petitioners were not aware of the factum, that they were entitled to such compensation. It was further stated that, as per the agreement, arrived at, between Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners and Mrs. Surender Nehra, complainant, the original allottee of apartment, up-to-date charges, on account of delay, in the delivery of possession of the same (apartment), were to be received by Mrs. Surender Nehra, but the same were neither paid to her, nor to them (applicants/Revision Petitioners), being the subsequent buyers of apartment, by the Opposite Parties/ respondents no.1 and 2. It was further stated that the applicants were, thus, necessary parties, in whose absence, the controversies could not be adjudicated upon completely and effectively. Alongwith the application for impleadment as a party, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.
5. In reply to the application for impleadment of applicants/Revision Petitioners, as a Party, to the complaint, it was stated that the applicants/Revision Petitioners were not necessary Parties. It was further stated that the application filed by the Revision Petitioners was barred by limitation.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the applicants, and the Opposite Parties, the District Forum, dismissed both the applications, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision Petition, was filed by the Revision Petitioners/applicants.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. First coming to the application for condonation of delay, for impleadment of the Revision Petitioners as a Party, to the complaint, it may be stated here, that perusal of Annexure C-13, a copy of the Discharge and follow up Card, of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and Annexure C-14 Complicated Chronic Disease Certificate, reliance whereupon, was placed by the Revision Petitioners/applicants, reveals that the same relate to Mrs. Surender Nehra, complainant (now deceased). The documents, aforesaid, were, in no way, related to the Revision Petitioners. Once the applicants/Revision Petitioners were delivered possession of the apartment on 15.06.2009, they had an independent right, to file a complaint, to claim compensation, as per the terms of the Buyers Agreement, for delay in delivery of possession. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
10. No doubt, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that it was a continuing cause of action, and not fixed time cause of action, and, as such, the applications, aforesaid, were not barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioners, does not appear to be correct. Once, the possession was delivered to the applicants/Revision-Petitioners, on 15.06.2009, it became one time cause of action. They, at the most, were allegedly entitled to compensation, for the delayed delivered of possession, upto 15.06.2009, and not beyond that. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. Now coming to the second application, for impleadment of the applicants/Revision Petitioners, as a Party to Consumer Complaint No.225 of 2011. Admittedly, the possession was not delivered, on or before 27.10.2007 (date specified in the Agreement) to Mrs. Surender Nehra, complainant, (now deceased), the original allottee. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that Mrs. Surender Nehra, sold the apartment, to Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, on 22.05.2009. Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, were handed over the physical possession of apartment, on 15.06.2009. This fact was also found mention, in the Conveyance Deed Annexure R-3. At the time of transfer of her right, in the apartment, by the complainant, in favour of Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, an affidavit Annexure R-2 dated 22.05.2009, was sworn by her (Surender Nehra). Paragraph number 4 of the same, reads as under:-
“That I/We have my/our own consent and sweet will assign the aforesaid allotment and have relinquished all my/our rights, titles and claims, whatsoever in favour of my Assignee(s) Sanjeev Grover S/o Mr. Om Parkash Grover and M/s Kanika Mittal W/o Mr. Sanjeev Grover R/o 640A, Parshnath Greenville, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the “Assignee(s)” and shall have no claim over the aforesaid allotment/unit or against the company hereinafter)”
12. The perusal of the afore-extracted paragraph number 4 of Annexure R-2, sworn by Surender Nehra, complainant, reveals that the applicants/Revision Petitioners had right to receive compensation, for delay in possession. As stated above, the possession of apartment was delivered to Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, on 15.06.2009. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the application for impleadment of the applicants/Revision Petitioners, as a Party to Consumer Complaint No.225 of 2011, having been filed, after a period of 2 years, which period was provided for filing the original complaint, was certainly barred by time. The District Forum was also right, in holding that since Sanjeev Grover and Kanika Mittal, applicants/Revision Petitioners, were conferred with the right to claim compensation, for delay in delivery of possession, as per Annexure R-2, the affidavit, which was sworn by Mrs. Surender Nehra, complainant, (now deceased), the original allottee, on 22.05.2009, they could file an independent complaint, within a period of 2 years, from 15.06.2009, when the possession was delivered to them. Since, an independent right accrued to the applicants/Revision Petitioners, to file a complaint, they had no right, to file the application, for impleadment, as a party in the complaint. The applicants/Revision Petitioners, were, thus, not necessary parties, in whose absence, the controversy could not completely and effectively adjudicated upon.
13. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order impugned does not suffer from any Jurisdictional error or illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the Revision Petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The District Forum record, alongwith a copy of the order be sent to District Forum (II), immediately.
18. The file of the Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
12.02.2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
