IA 5384 of 2020 (condonation of delay)

         The Respondent/Complainant, who is appearing in person, submits that he has no objection if the delay be condoned subject to costs.

         In view of this submissions of the Respondent/Complainant and for the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/-.  The costs shall be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent/Complainant by way of demand draft within two weeks from today.        

-2-

         Issue notice of the Appeal.  Notice is accepted by the Respondent/Complainant.

         Arguments are heard on the present Appeal.

1.      The present Appeal, under Section ­­­51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.180 of 2018.

2.      The Complainant, who is appearing in person, submits that the other allottees of the same scheme had also challenged the action of the Appellant and the matter had been decided in their favour.  The Appellant had challenged the order of the State Commission in Appeals and Revision Petitions and those Appeals and Revision Petitions wherein the issue in dispute is the same have already been dismissed.  It is submitted that it is a covered case and has relied on the findings of the Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. K. Aggarwal, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member of this Commission in “Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization vs. Subhash Setia, FA No.1472 of 2018” wherein the Appeals of the Appellant qua the said allottees had been dismissed.  It is submitted that the order had

-3-

not been challenged before the superior court and has attained the finality and therefore, this Bench should also follow the same findings and dismiss the Appeal.

3.      Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not disputed the fact that several allottees of the same project had filed the Complaints which were decided in their favour and thereafter the Appeals and the Revision Petitions filed by the Appellant qua those orders have also been dismissed.  He has not denied the findings of the Bench of this Commission in Subhash Setia’s case (supra).  Learned Counsel has stated that he is not aware whether any Appeal had been filed against the said orders.

4.      I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.  The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 12.12.2019 of the State Commission   wherein the following directions were issued:

19. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-

i) to deliver possession of the flat in question, complete in all respects, to the complainant without payment of any outstanding dues by him within a period of two months.

ii) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension and agony caused to him;

-4-

iii) to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.  In case the opposite parties fail to deliver the possession within two months, as ordered above, then in the alternative

i) to refund the amount of Rs.49,60,000/- to the complainant

along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of payment of different amounts till the date of payment;

ii) to pay Rs.65,000/-, as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by them including cost of litigation.”

5.      It is an admitted fact that in the execution petition filed by the Respondent/Complainant, the directions have been complied with by the Appellant.  All the contentions raised by the Appellant had been the subject matter of discussion in the earlier Revision Petitions/Appeals in other cases.  In Subhash Setia’s case (supra), this Commission has held as under:

“Challenge in this Appeal is to the order dated 29.1.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.761/2017, whereby State Commission has allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party, the Appellant herein, to deliver the possession of the flat, complete in all respects to the Complainant without payment of any outstanding dues along with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹22,000/- as cost of litigation within two months failing which shall refund the amount of ₹34,37,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the different dates of payment of different amounts till the date of payment and ₹50,000/- as compensation.

          Since the issue raised in the present Appeal has already been examined by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1488 of 2016 (Nasib Singh v.

-5-

Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization) and other connected Revision Petitions, for the sake of brevity, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts, giving rise to the present Appeal and dismiss the Appeal.

6.      In view of the above, the Appeal stands dismissed with the direction that in case the costs imposed is not paid by the Appellant, the Complainant shall be at liberty to file the execution for recovery of the same.