National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajesh Malhotra & 3 Ors. vs M/S. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 20 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 06/01/2016 in Complaint No. 10/2010 of the State Commission Goa) 1. RAJESH MALHOTRA & 3 ORS. Acron Plaza,Opp. Shah Industrial Estates, Deoner, Mumbai-400088 Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. ACRON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. Acron Plaza, Opp. Shah Indurtrial Estates, Deoner, Mumbai-400088 Maharatra 2. Dr. John Britto,Director Acron Developers 'p' Ltd., 591/4, Montermar, Retreat House Road, Baga,Bardez,Goa-403516 3. Mr. Amar Britto, Director. Acron Developers 'p' Ltd.,591/4,Montermar,Retreat House Road, Baga, Bardez, Goa-403516 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Bhabna Das, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Malhotra & Mrs. Deepa Malhotra, Complainants No. 1 & 2 in person For the Respondent : Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Somesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate Dated : 20 May 2016 ORDER
1. In this second round of Appellate proceedings, the Complainants are again before us, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 06.01.2016, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panjim - Goa (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 10/2010. By the impugned order, like in the first round, the State Commission has again dismissed the Complaint on technical grounds, viz.:
The villas in question were purchased by the Complainants for commercial purpose in order to make profit; The Complaint was barred by limitation;
The State Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint; and Elaborate evidence would be required to adjudicate upon the issues raised in the Complaint, which exercise cannot be undertaken in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties for some time and carefully perused our earlier order, dated 05.11.2015, in First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014, we are constrained to observe that despite our clear finding on the issue whether or not the Villas in question were purchased by the Complainants for "commercial purpose", the State Commission, in its own wisdom, has again taken a contrary view. We may note that in our earlier order we had referred to the latter decisions rendered by this Commission on the said issue but the State Commission has chosen to follow those decisions which support its view on the point.
3. Under the circumstances, though at the cost of unnecessary monetary, physical and mental harassment to the two Senior Citizens, viz. Appellants No. 1 and 2, who are pursuing the cause of their children as well, we have no option but to again set aside the impugned order and restore the Complaint to the board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. We may clarify that except for the question as to whether the villas in question were booked/purchased for "commercial purpose", on which issue we have already expressed our final opinion in favour of the Complainants, it will be open to the State Commission to deal with all other legal issues, which may be raised before it by both the parties but while rendering its opinion on the said legal issues, the State Commission shall also decide the Complaint on merits, in accordance with law.
4. Since the matter is hanging fire for over five years, we request the State Commission to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
6. The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.07.2016 for further proceedings.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER