Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/16/2015

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramesh Chander Bawa - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Saini, Adv.

26 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	16 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	26.05.2015

 

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Engineer R. N. Single, Director and Authorized Signatory of the Company.

…..Revision Petitioner.

Versus

Ramesh Chander Bawa S/o Sh. B. R. Bawa, allottee and resident of 425-M, New Generation Apartment, Ambala Kalka Road, Dakholi, Zirakpur.

              ....Respondent/Complainant.

Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.

 

 PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 12.05.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in Execution Application No.31 of 2014, vide which it directed Opposite Party No.1 to appear before it (District Forum) on 29.05.2015 through its MD/Director & authorized signatory, and produce copies of the completion and occupation certificates, obtained from the competent authority, and to file a sworn affidavit that the same have been obtained from the competent authority. The District Forum further held that if the order passed by the State Commission, as affirmed by the National Commission, had not been complied with, then action in accordance with provisions of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be taken against the Opposite Party.

2.                The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant filed a Consumer Complaint, before the District Forum, which was accepted vide order dated 16.09.2013, operative part whereof is extracted hereunder:-

“29.   For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed:-

i)        To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 

ii)       OP No.1 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iii)      OP No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

30.    This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within the stipulated period, as directed above, failing which, OP No.1 would be liable to pay the double of the compensation amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.”

3.                Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the District Forum, Opposite Party No.1 filed First Appeal bearing No.462 of 2013 before this Commission, which was partly allowed, vide order dated 10.12.2013 in the following manner:-

“39.   For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, and Opposite Party    No.1 as directed as under:-

 

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, as compensation, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to respondent no.1/complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, as awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

 

2. To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.

 

4. The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Party No.1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.

 

5. In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 39 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.

 

6. Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.

 

4.                Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by this Commission, Opposite Party No.1, filed Revision Petition No.1621 of 2014 in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as National Commission), which was dismissed by it vide order dated 20.11.2014, operative part whereof, interalia, is extracted hereunder:-

“13.   It is, therefore, ordered that the complainants will approach the petitioner/OP, who will execute the sale deed or conveyance deed and get the same registered in favour of the complainants, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complainants will pay the stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges.  To make the things           easier for both the parties, after  receipt  of  this order the complainant would give a notice to the OP-1 that they would  be depositing all the above said charges i.e. the  stamp duty, etc.,  and they would execute the sale deed within 7 days.  If, there is any fault on the part of the OP, they will be liable to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day till the sale deed is executed. It was also  brought  to  our  notice that as  a matter of fact, Smt. Prem Lata, the complainant has transferred the apartment to  some third-party and the sale deed  was  executed  in  the name  of transferee.  It, therefore, means that Smt. Prem Lata has suppressed the facts.  She has not come to the Court with clean hands. She has been wasting our time for the reasons best known to her.

20.    Keeping  in view  all  the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the petitioners’  revision  petitions  subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each,   for further harassment, mental  agony,   disappointment, anger and wastage of time.  The petitioners are directed to pay the amount  of  Rs.1,00,000/- each  of  the complainants,   within  45 days of the receipt of the copy  of  this  order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.  The order  of  the  State Commission also be complied with.  The entire order, except clause (ii), (iii) & (v), be strictly complied with. 

21.    It is also made clear that the allottees are entitled to all the facilities mentioned in the agreement, e.g., agreement entered into with Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana dated 22.10.2003 and the advertisement, placed on the record as Ex.CD-1 and the brochure, placed  on the record.  All  these  facilities/ amenities   become  part of this  decree.   The   petitioners  are given time to make arrangements for all these facilities/civil amenities, including Community Centre, Commercial   Complex/Market, Park, reasonable Car Parking, Entrance Gate,  etc., as stated in the above said documents, within a period of six months’ from today, otherwise, it will form part of the decree and the same shall stand executable,  before the executing court, i.e., the District Forum.  If the above said works are  not  accomplished, within  a period of six months’, it will carry Rs.10,000/- as penalty per month, till it is accomplished.”

5.                Subsequently, the respondent/complainant filed the Execution Application bearing No.31 of 2014 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) before the District Forum, wherein the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 was passed, directing Opposite Party No.1 to appear before the District Forum alongwith the completion and occupation certificates as stated in the opening para of the order.

6.                Feeling aggrieved, against the order dated 12.05.2015, passed by the District Forum, the instant Revision-Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1.

7.                The Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that once the order passed by the State Commission had been modified by the National Commission, it would be the order of the National Commission, which would be executed. He further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the District Forum considered the direction issued by the State Commission regarding which the National Commission in the order had specifically held that clauses (ii), (iii) and (v) as directed by the State Commission need not be strictly complied with. He further submitted that the District Forum had gone beyond the scope of the order of the National Commission and decided the application on absolutely wrong premises. He further submitted that so far as the completion and occupation certificates were concerned, it was unjust on the part of the District Forum to still follow those directions, passed by the State Commission. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner specifically stated before the District Forum that all the directions issued by the National Commission had been complied with. He further submitted that the National Commission had nowhere directed that before the execution of the sale deed, completion and occupation certificates were required to be obtained. He further submitted that it was the respondent/complainant, who was not coming forward to complete the formalities i.e. to pay the stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges and thus, is guilty of disobeying the order of the National Commission. He further submitted that against the order impugned, which is interim, in nature, only Revision Petition is maintainable.

8.                The core question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Revision Petition filed by the  Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 12.05.2015 is maintainable or not? Section 27A of the Act, being relevant is extracted hereunder:-

“27A.        Appeal against order passed under section 27 - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -  

1. the order made by the District  Forum to the State Commission ;
2. the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
3. the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court. 

(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission :

Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”

From the perusal of the afore-extracted provision of the Act, it is evident that only an appeal under Section 27A of the Act, is maintainable against the order, passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act, and such an appeal is not restricted to a final order whereas the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred the Revision Petition, which is not at all legally maintainable. A similar question came up for decision before the National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Perfect Prints, I (2015) 540 (NC), wherein its Full Bench, in Paras 6 and 7 of the order, held as under:-

“6.     Section 27 of the Act inter alia provides for an Appeal to this Commission, against ‘an order’ passed by the State Commission under Section 27 of the Act. Such an Appeal is not restricted to a final order. Therefore, any original order, whether it be a final order, intermediate order or interlocutory order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act, can be challenged by a person aggrieved from such an order, by way of an Appeal before the Commission.

          Since an Appeal against such an order has been statutorily provided, no revision petition, challenging an original order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act is maintainable.

7.      If an order passed by a District Forum under Section 27 of the Act is challenged by way of an Appeal to the State Commission, the order passed by the State Commission in such an Appeal, whether it is a final order, or an intermediate order or an interlocutory order cannot be subjected to yet another Appeal, as no second Appeal is provided under the Act. However, being a non-appealable order passed by the State Commission, such an order can be challenged before this Commission by way of a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Act.”

9.                The National Commission has made it clear that only an appeal is maintainable, before the State Commission, against the order passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act and against the order of the State Commission, passed in such an appeal, the Revision Petition is maintainable before it (National Commission). In view of the provisions of Section 27A of the Act and the law settled by the National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Perfect Prints’s case (supra), we are of the considered opinion, that no Revision Petition is maintainable before this Commission against the order, passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act, whether it be a final, intermediate or interlocutory order. Such an order passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act can only be assailed/impugned by way of an appeal under Section 27-A of the Act, before the State Commission. In the instant case also, the order impugned, which is intermediate, in nature was passed in the Execution Application, under Section 27 of the Act, filed by the respondent/complainant. As such, the same could not be challenged by way of Revision Petition before this Commission. Therefore, the Revision Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, is  liable to be dismissed, being not legally maintainable.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition is dismissed, being not maintainable, with no order as to costs.

11.              The record of the District Forum be returned alongwith a certified copy of the order.

12.       The Revision-Petitioner through its Counsel is directed to appear before District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh on 05.06.2015 at 10:30 AM.

13.              The Revision-Petition file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

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

Pronounced.

May  26,  2015.

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

Ad