Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/287/2024

MANISHA KANWAR, W/O SH. SUNIL KANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SISWAN PARADISE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SH. GURPREET SINGH SIDHU - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH VERMA

29 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

 

 

 

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/287/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	08/08/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	29/11/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Manisha Kanwar wife of Sh. Sunil Kanwar, Resident of Village Dhali, P.O. Pharal, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla.

….Appellant

Versus

1.     M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director – Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Emerging Heights-III, Rd Number 2, Sector 115, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140307.  

 

2.     M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director – Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Emerging Heights-III, Rd Number 2, Sector 115, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140307.  

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
		Respondents ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2024.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/288/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	08/08/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	29/11/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Wazir Singh son of Sh. Jai Narain, Resident of Flat No. B-302, Pearl Heights, Ramprasth Green, Vaishali, Ghaziabad – 201010.

 

….Appellant

Versus

 

1.     M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director – Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Emerging Heights-III, Rd Number 2, Sector 115, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140307.  

 

2.     M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director – Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Emerging Heights-III, Rd Number 2, Sector 115, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140307.  

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
		Respondents ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2024.

 

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.         This order shall dispose of above captioned appeals i.e. A/287/2024 titled Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and A/288/2024 titled Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., filed against the common order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. District Commission’), vide which along with other connected complaints, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaints bearing No. CC/52/2020 and CC/500/2020 filed by the Complainant(s)/ (Appellant(s) herein) against Opposite Parties/Respondents by passing the following order: -

“15]    In C.C. No.520/2020 – Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another, OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. The Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.   

16]    In C.C. No.500/2020 – Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another, OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.6,80,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. The Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.”

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the same can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

4.         Along with instant appeals, the Appellant(s) has moved MA/705/2024 (in A/287/2024) and MA/706/2024 (in A/288/2024) for condoning the delay of 78 days (as per office 86 days) in filing the Appeals. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the appeals shall be treated to be within time. Accordingly, misc. applications bearing no. MA/705/2024 and MA/706/2024 stand disposed of.
5.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that she applied for a cottage farmhouse measuring 605 sq. yards in the project of the Opposite Parties known as “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali by paying entire payment ₹4.50 lakhs through cheques as per plan B against receipts dated 01.07.2013 for her personal use/occupation of her family members. The Opposite Parties demanded ₹50,000/- for executing the sale deed, which was paid by her, no receipt qua the same was issued.  It has been averred that the Opposite Parties have not taken any permission from the GMADA nor they have got CLU for selling the plots.  Eventually, the complainant sought the refund of the deposited amount along with interest, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties Party.

 

6.         Despite due service through publication, Opposite Party No.1 failed to put in appearance and as such, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 21.11.2022.

 

7.         The Opposite Party No.2 filed its written statement stating therein that the complainant never paid any payment to it and neither she is competent to file the present complaint qua it. The payments qua the booked plot have been made by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 and as such, the complainant has no privity of contract with it. On these precincts the consumer complaint was sought to be defended. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaints hereinabove along with other connected complaints and issued directions to the Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd.) as noticed in the opening Para of this order. The Complaints qua Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be dismissed.   

 

9.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeals i.e. A/287/2024 titled Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and A/288/2024 titled Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., have been filed by the Complainant(s) for modification of order dated 18.03.2024 seeking compensation and ligation expenses.

 

10.         Notably, in the present proceedings, despite service, none entered appearance on behalf of the Respondents. As such, the Respondents were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2024. 

 

11.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant(s) and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

12.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion that captioned Appeals deserve to be partly accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

13.         Learned Counsel vociferously submitted that the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) suffered huge financial loss, mental distress, agony and harassment at the hands of the Respondent from last more than 11 years, which the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate while passing the impugned order in as much as no compensation towards financial hardship, harassment and mental agony has been granted by it. He has also submitted that the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) incurred substantial expenses for prosecuting the ligation, but the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate the same and did not grant any litigation charges. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeals.

 

14.         Learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) argued that the Ld. District Commission wrongly dismissed the Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party No.2, despite the fact that it was specifically been stated that both the Opposite Parties i.e. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were sister concern companies and Respondent No.2 was marketing the project. However, per material on record, we do not find any merit in this limb of argument, in as much as, the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) failed to adduce even an iota of evidence before the Ld. District Commission to show that there was privity of contract of the Complainant with the Respondent No.2 ad also that Respondent No.2 is the sister concern of the Respondent No.1 and was marketing the project. Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence on record to substantiate that the Complainant(s) never paid any payment to Respondent No.2 rather the payments in respect of the booked plot were made by the Complainant(s) to the Opposite Party No.1. The Ld. District Commission has thus rightly dismissed the Consumer Complaint qua Opposite Party No.2.

 

15.         The main thread which runs through the present controversy is whether the order passed by the Ld. District Commission deserves to be modified by granting compensation and ligation expenses to the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s). 

 

16.         Admittedly, the Respondent/ Opposite Party had enjoyed the amount(s) paid by the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) for more than 11 years.  It is well settled that the word ‘Compensation’ is of very vide connotation and once the Court is satisfied that the complainant has suffered harassment or mental agony and is entitled to compensation, it is obliged to adequately compensate him for the actual loss or expected loss, which would extend to compensation for the physical, mental or emotional sufferings. On the question of determination of compensation for the loss or injury suffered by a consumer on account of deficiency in service, the following observations by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 668 are also apposite:-
    1.  

“While quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

 

In Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to the award of compensation to alleviate the harassment and agony to a consumer. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while explaining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the adjudicatory fora under the Consumer Protection Act observed that “…The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done”. Under these circumstances, the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) are entitled to get, special, exemplary and aggravated damages.So on account of inconvenience, physical and mental harassment suffered by the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s) at the hands of the Opposite Party, ₹50,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Ld. District Commission needs modification. 

 

17.         It is relevant to mention here, as far as costs of litigation is concerned, it is settled principle of law, that the cost of litigation awarded by the Courts/Foras, must provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant, for the expenditure incurred by him/her, for prosecuting the litigation. The cost of litigation should not be too meagre, to discourage the genuine litigants, from approaching the Courts/Foras, for redressal of their grievance. In “Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj” (2010) 8 SCC 1, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the litigation cost awarded by the Courts or Foras, should not be a punishment to the defeated party, but as a recompense to the successful party, for the expenses to which he/she had been subjected, or for whatever appeared to the Courts/Foras, to be the legal expenses incurred by the party, for prosecuting his/her suit or defence. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. In this view of the settled position of law, the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s)  deserve to be suitably awarded litigation, as, it was the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s)  who had to incur for payment of fees, to his Counsel on account of the deficient services rendered by the Respondent. So on account of inconvenience and expenditure incurred by the Appellant(s)/ Complainant(s), Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as costs.  In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Ld. District Commission, also needs modification. 

 

18.         In the wake of above, present Appeals i.e. A/287/2024 titled Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and A/288/2024 titled Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., stand partly accepted. The orders of the Ld. District Commission are modified to the aforesaid extent. The other part of the order with regard to refund of the deposited amount(s) along with interest is affirmed. The order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

19.         No other point was urged by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant(s).

 

20.         The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

21.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of A/288/2024 titled Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

22.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 

 

23.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

29^th November, 2024                                                                          

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”