PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

In all these revision petitions question to be decided is common; hence, decided by common order.   

2.      These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 785/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shobhit Elhance & Ors., in Appeal No. 787/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Haribhau Patil & Ors., in Appeal No. 789/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta & Ors., in Appeal No. 790/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subir Majumdar & Ors., in Appeal No. 783/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Dhawan & Ors., in Appeal No. 784/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors., in Appeal No. 786/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inder Kumar Parimoo & Ors. and in Appeal No. 788/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Bala Chadha & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeals in limine, order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was upheld.

3.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainants/respondents purchased flats for a sale consideration from OP/petitioner.  OP failed to deliver possession of flats within time and illegally charged EDC charges, infrastructure development charges, stamp duty, registration charges, etc.  It was further submitted that OP delivered possession of the flats without providing basic facilities like club and ground parking. Conveyance deed, etc. have also not been executed in their favour.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants prayed for refund of additional EDC charges, infrastructure development charges, extra stamp duty, refund of car parking charges, refund of club membership charges and grant of penalty charges on account of delayed possession.  OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP has complied with terms and conditions of buyer’s agreement.  It was further submitted that delay in delivery of possession occurred due to delayed payment of installments by the complainants. It was further submitted that maintenance of basic facilities was not responsibility of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP to refund money for covered parking space with interest and further awarded litigation charges.  Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission in limine vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order and has not considered grounds taken in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that learned District forum has dealt all the issues at length and learned State Commission has also discussed every aspect and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5.      Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has quoted judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. – AIR 2010 SC 3607, as quoted by District Forum in its order and while dismissing appeal, observed as under:

“In view of the above, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. In Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Supra), it has been made clear that an open space cannot be termed as garage. The garage is a shelter for vehicle which has a roof and wall on three sides.  Thus, the complainant has rightly been held entitled for refund of Rs.2,50,000/- from the appellant-opposite party No.1, charged as parking charges.  The basement used for common utilities and as common parking for all the allottees without any specific enclosure cannot be termed as ‘garage’, thus entitling the opposite parties to charge the complainant for the parking charges terming it as ‘garage’.”

6.      Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that learned State Commission has merely relied on judgment of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Supra) on which District Forum’s order was based and dismissed appeal in limine without any reason.

7.      Perusal of memo of appeal filed before State Commission reveals that OP stated in memo of appeal that judgment of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to OP’s case, as aforesaid judgment was dealing with MOFA whereas in Haryana State, Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 is applicable in which different words have been given different meaning. It was also contended that complainants bought the underground car parking space of their own free will and as per terms and conditions of buyer’s agreement, amount was received.

8.      Thus, it becomes clear that learned State Commission has not dealt with grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner in memo of appeal and simply based its judgment on Nahalchand Laloochand’s case without any cogent reason.  It is obligatory on the part of Appellate Court to deal with all the objections raised in memo of appeal.

9.      Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 – HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under:

“1.In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:

‘We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN – appellant and have also perused the impugned order.  We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’.

2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter.  The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.  It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission”.

10.    In the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with any facts of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.

11.    Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and order dated 7.11.2013 passed by learned State  Commission in Appeal No. 785/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shobhit Elhance & Ors., in Appeal No. 787/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Haribhau Patil & Ors., in Appeal No. 789/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashish Kumar Gupta & Ors., in Appeal No. 790/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subir Majumdar & Ors., in Appeal No. 783/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Dhawan & Ors., in Appeal No. 784/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors., in Appeal No. 786/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inder Kumar Parimoo & Ors. and in Appeal No. 788/2013 –  M/s. Matrix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Bala Chadha & Ors. are set aside and matters are remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding them by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

12.    Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 10.11.2014.