These two First Appeals, by the Complainants, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), are directed against a common order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Cases No.20 and 21 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Complaints in limine, observing thus (FA/369/2017): 5. On hearing Counsel for the complainants, at the admission stage, and also on perusal of the entire paper book, we are of the considered opinion that both the complaints need to be dismissed at the preliminary stage. Possession of the unit was offered to the complainants, within the agreed period. Thereafter, without raising any question, in terms of provisions of the Agreement, sale deed qua the plot, in question, was got executed by the complainants in their name. Thereafter, they became owners of the said property. If they had any grouse qua non-development at the site, it was their duty to object to it before execution of the sale deed and further it is on record that to compensate the complainants qua any deficiency in providing service, the expenses for registration of sale deed was born by the opposite parties. It is also mentioned in the complaint, that some more amount was also paid to the complainants, to compensate them. If that is so, how they can now file a complaint and can raise claim for further grant of compensation, without making any case, as to what loss they have suffered; and how they are entitled to get an amount of Rs.25 lacs, towards mental agony and physical harassment, by way of filing this complaint. It -4- is further stated that when getting sale deed executed, a promise was made with the complainant, by the opposite parties, to compensate them further. When that promise was made?; by whom it was made?; and where it was made?, it is not coming out from the complaint. It appears that if such promise was made, it might have been made, when the sale deed was executed at a place, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, as such, this complaint is not maintainable at Chandigarh. Counsel for the complainants was advised to file this complaint before the appropriate Fora; however, he refused to do so. Furthermore, it is case of the complainants that they were pressurized, forced and undue influence was exerted on them, by the opposite parties, when sale deed was got executed. To prove such allegations, it is necessary to bring on record detailed evidence, which is not possible before this Commission, in summary proceedings. As such, no case is made out, to admit these complaints before this Commission.” 2. Questioning the legality of the orders impugned in these Appeals, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has strenuously urged that the afore-extracted findings arrived at by the State Commission are based on presumptions drawn from misreading of the facts, without affording an opportunity to the Complainants to lead evidence in support of the averments made in the Complaints, after ascertaining the stand of the Opposite Parties, a Real Estate Developer and its Director, therein. For instance, it is pointed out that the State Commission has observed that in the Complaints it is mentioned that some more amount was also paid to the Complainants to compensate them but no such averment is borne out from the Complaints. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the Complaints -5- be restored for adjudication on merits, after due opportunity to the parties to the Complaints to put forth their rival stands on the issues raised in the Complaints. 3. Having carefully perused the averments made in the Complaints and the documents filed therewith, including certain photographs placed on record by the Appellants, we are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel. 4. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph of the impugned order that the questions posed by the State Commission therein, could be answered by the Appellants by leading evidence in support of the averments in the Complaints, in the event of the same being controverted by the Opposite Parties in their Written Version, for which the occasion never arose. In our opinion, the State Commission could have come to the afore-noted conclusion only after due consideration of the stand of the Opposite Parties, for which purpose notice was required to be issued to them. A fair opportunity to the Complainants to prove their case is necessitous in law, which, in our view, in the instant cases, has not been afforded to them. We are, therefore, convinced that, on the facts at hand, the State Commission has committed serious illegality in dismissing the Complaints in limine. -6- Consequently, both the Appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside and both the afore-noted Complaints are restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. The Complainants/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.05.2017 for further proceedings. |
