STATE COMMISSION PUNJAB CONSUMER APPEAL- GULMOHAR VALLEY

Last Updated on January 15, 2023 by Satish Mishra

This post covers STATE COMMISSION PUNJAB CONSUMER APPEAL against GULMOHAR VALLEY dismissed being devoid of merits.

Citation- Recovery (Ashok Kumar vs Punjab Empires Pvt. Ltd.)

This analysis will provide an in-depth assimilation of the extent of the power the state consumer dispute Redressal commissions enjoy in such cases. It will also highlight the importance of evidence in such cases. Lastly, with the help of the various cases cited in the judgement of this particular case, this analysis will explain the impact of evidence in the outcome of a plea of appeal.

Facts

Averred in the complaint, are that the opposite parties took a sum of Rs.12,22,000/- from the complainants upto the date of 01.07.2013 against the projected sale of alleged plot No.62, measuring 138.88 sq. Yards in Gulmohar Valley, Lalru promoted by them. The said project was neither approved nor had the requisite permissions but the opposite parties in connivance with certain revenue officials got the registry of the alleged plot executed on 01.07.2013 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Dera Bassi. It was further averred that no such plot number 62 was ever existed in the alleged Gulmohar Valley, Lalru. The complainants upon being confronted, the opposite parties agreed to immediately refund the total amount of Rs.12,22,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% plus reimbursement of all the expenses borne by the complainants. On 11.05.2015, the opposite parties prevailed upon the complainants to sign an agreement in the form of an “agreement to sell” for the sale of the above said plot by the complainants back to the company, in which the sale consideration was shown as Rs.12,22,000/-. The opposite parties also assured the complainants that the other payments relating to registry expenses and due interest will be paid in due course of time as they were allegedly not possessed with enough finances at that stage. However, the opposite parties did not abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.05.2015 where they were to refund/pay the full principal amount of Rs.12,22,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties gave a cheque bearing No.984109 dated 14.05.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, no further payment was made to the complainants till 28.03.2016. Another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the complainants and promised to give the balance payments of Rs.10,22,000/- within three months i.e. upto 29.06.2016.

Also read-  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 The opposite parties completed the refund payment only on 17.04.2017 which is evident from the Sale Deed dated 17.04.2017. In the sale deed total sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs.2,22,500/- instead of actual sale consideration of Rs.12,22,000/-. The complainants issued various letters to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not replied and ignored the same. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 06.10.2017 was served upon the opposite parties and expressed his willingness to receive another sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as the balance amount towards settlement of all the issues, including interest due on amounts paid, repeated delay in refund etc. However, all the notices have been received back with remarks ‘refused’ or ‘unclaimed’. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties the complainants approached the District Commission and sought the following reliefs:-

1. i) To pay Rs.11,00,000/- as the balance amount towards settlement of all issues, including interest due on amounts paid to the respondents, repeated delay in refund, re-imbursement of registry and other expenses, compensation towards unfair trade practices of floating an illegal colony, selling plots illegally, causing the complainants to enter into wrongful transactions, causing financial losses, physical and mental harassment; and
2. ii) to pay Rs.55,000/- as legal costs Defence of the Opposite Parties

Upon notice, opposite parties No.1,2 and 4 to 7 were not appeared and proceeded against ex-parte vide order by the District Commission, whereas opposite party No.3 was given up in view of the statement of the complainant.

Also Read- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab

Issues Involved

1. Whether the decision held by the district court was correctly held?
2. Whether the contention about the recovery amount as put forward by the complainants is correct?

• Whether the complainants should receive any compensation?

Rules and Laws

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Munimahesh Patel reported in 2006(4) CivCC 203- proceedings before Commission are essentially summary in nature and issue which involve dispute factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission. We find that complex factual matrix requires in this case that matter should be examined by an appropriate court of law in regular proceedings and not in summary manner by this Commission. Since in the present case, a handsome amount is involved and the complainants are unable to prove on record any cogent and convincing evidence that the said amount was paid for purchase of plot for residential purposes and the said plot was again resold by the complainant. Moreover, the amount mentioned in the sale deed is much less than of the amount as the complainants alleged in their complaint. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to lay our hands off the adjudication in this case.

Reliance Industries Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998(1) CPJ 13- question of ownership of goods, conspiracy and fraud were raised, which required elaborate inquiry for disposal.

M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd v. United Commercial Bank 1992(3) CPJ 50- where the allegations of fraud, forgery have been raised by the parties against one another requiring elaborate oral or documentary evidence, the matter be relegated to civil court for adjudication.

Findings of Court

The appeal filed by the appellants/complainants was dismissed being devoid of merits and the order passed by the District Commission is upheld.

Also Read- consumer state commission doctypes: punjab – Indian Kanoon

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we can say that, in the cases where the complainants cannot prove a transaction through evidence such as receipts, in those cases any fraud cannot be held to be done on the grounds of lack of merit of the particular case.

For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

 More on 99888-17966