Delhi

New Delhi

CC/643/2014

Kuljit Kaur Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2019

ORDER

 

                                                                 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.643/2014                                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mrs. Kuljit Kaur Bhalla,

W/o Sh. Alakhjit Singh Bhalla,

R/o C-52, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.

 

 

2. Sh. Alakhjit Singh Bhalla,

S/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh Bhalla,

              R/o C-52, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.

                                                 ..COMPLAINANTS

 

 

VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,

(ISO 9001 : 2000 Certified Company)

115, Ansal Bhawan,

16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

             New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Managing Director,

PRO FACILITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

5, Mathura Road, Jangpura-A,

              New Delhi-110014.

 

 

...OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a free hold plot  from OP-1 vide registered sale deed. The complainant has paid full amount of the plot and same was free from encumbrances.  Moreover, the complainant does not want maintenance of the said plot from OP because the OP takes money and did not maintain the plot in question.   But the OP demanding the maintenance charges continuously from the complainant. The OPs have permitted trespassers to unauthorizedly cars parking, rickshaws, set up tea stall, and dump malba etc. on the said plot.  In addition, the OPs have permitted thieves to remove the boundary pillars, boundary wires and carry away the bricks.  As per Registered Sale Deed, the possession has already been handed over to complainant-1and the same was free from all encumbrances, hence, nothing was due to the OPs.  However , the OPs keep mailing unjustified letters and demanding unjustified payment for maintenance.  Vide letter dated 4.3.2013, the OPs threatened the complainants and asked them that they would cancel the sale deed. The Complainants sent legal notices dt. 14.3.2013, 10.4.2013, 4.5.2014 and 24.5.2013 but OPs neither repaired damages at the site nor compensated the damages at the site, hence this complaint.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, Counsel for OP-1 appeared but it failed to file its written statement. Therefore its right to file written statement closed on 22.4.2016. 

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP-2. In its reply OP-2 stated that the present complainant be dismissed on the sole ground that there is no privity of contract between the OP-2 and complainant.  It is stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is further stated that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is also stated that the complainants have filed the present complaint with a dishonest intent of harassing the OP and to wriggle out of their contractual commitments of making timely payment as per the demand raised.  OP-2 denied that it does not maintain the plot because they only charged money and do not maintain the plot.  It was also denied that OP-2 kept on mailing unjustified letters and unjustified bills but OP-2 was performing it’s duties diligently and without any failure and has never left any stone unturned while serving to its customers.  It is also stated that OP-2 has never received the legal notices.   It is submitted that no damage has taken place at the site in question.  Prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

6.     Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  i) whether any maintenance agreement arrived between the parties regarding the plot in question.  ii)  whether the OP had failed in providing the maintenance services iii) the complainant has levied the allegation of  continuous threat and coercion by the OP  for making the payment of maintenance charges.  All these issues require elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.

7.     Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

8.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

 

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated questions of cheating and forgery which require elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

 

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 24/05/2019.

 

                                  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                            PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                         MEMBER