State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Awareness Group ... vs Rajiv Dhawan on 5 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.12 of 2010
Date of institution : 06.01.2010
Date of decision : 05.04.2013
National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its
Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market,
Sector 53, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant- OP
Versus
Rajiv Dhawan, H.No.48, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
5.3.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Shri Gaurav Bhayya Gilhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP, National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Rajeev Dhawan, was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,08,500/- First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 2
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation and on the payment of the refund amount within 30 days, he was to be ceased to be a Member of the OP.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint by the complainant, OP, which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, floated a scheme under which the registered members of the Society could have purchased four bedroom set or three bedroom set from it in Mohali. He was told by the OP that the flats will be constructed at Mohali as the land for the same had been finalized. He paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.1.2006 vide receipt No.751. The OP, vide letter dated 17.4.2008 made a demand of Rs.58,500/- and he paid that amount, vide receipt No.1700. After the formalities were completed, he was issued the membership certificate. Subsequently, he came to know that the OP instead of purchasing the land at Mohali had purchased a piece of land in Village Chappar Chirri, District Mohali for the construction of the flats. He was also surprised to know from the contents of the letter received by him from the OP that it was not having approval from the Government and without that approval it collected the amount from him. This act of the OP in collecting the amount towards the cost of the flat without the approval of the Government amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the complaint he prayed for the issuance of following directions to the OP:-
First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 3
i) to refund the sum of Rs.2,08,500/- paid on account of cost of 3 bedroom flat along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
ii) to award damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the increase in prices of flat/property during the last three years.
iii) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused at the instance of the OP.
iv) to award litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
3. The OP did not come present before the District Forum in spite of its service and was proceeded against ex parte.
4. The complainant in support of his averments made in the complaint produced the evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on his behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the OP at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. After having gone through the grounds of appeal and the records of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The only ground pleaded in the grounds of appeal for setting aside the impugned order is that its absence from the District Forum was neither wilfull nor deliberate and was on account of the intentional stating of its wrong First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 4 address by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Thus, in fact, by means of this appeal the OP wants to get the impugned order set aside on the ground that the order, vide which it was proceeded against ex parte, could not have been passed.
7. In the appeal, the OP has given the following address:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh."
In the complaint, the complainant had given the following address of the OP:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), 175, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through its President. 2nd Address:
SCO 528, (SF), Sector-70, Mohali."
8. The complainant proved on record a number of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, which pertain to the OP and consists of the letter, receipts, demand order and the certificate. In all these documents the same address of the OP has been given as was given by the complainant in the complaint. Then how it can be said that he intentionally gave a wrong address in order to obtain ex parte order from the District Forum? It is not a case where the service of the OP was declared to have been effected on account of non-receipt of the registered cover, in which a notice was sent, after the expiry of 30 days. The service was duly effected as is apparent from the order First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 5 passed by the District Forum on 29.2.2009. Thus, there is nothing on the record, which may prove the said ground taken up by the OP in the grounds of appeal. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
9. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 3.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 05, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.12 of 2010
Date of institution : 06.01.2010 Date of decision : 05.04.2013 National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant- OP Versus Rajiv Dhawan, H.No.48, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 5.3.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Shri Gaurav Bhayya Gilhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP, National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Rajeev Dhawan, was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,08,500/- First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 2
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation and on the payment of the refund amount within 30 days, he was to be ceased to be a Member of the OP.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint by the complainant, OP, which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, floated a scheme under which the registered members of the Society could have purchased four bedroom set or three bedroom set from it in Mohali. He was told by the OP that the flats will be constructed at Mohali as the land for the same had been finalized. He paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.1.2006 vide receipt No.751. The OP, vide letter dated 17.4.2008 made a demand of Rs.58,500/- and he paid that amount, vide receipt No.1700. After the formalities were completed, he was issued the membership certificate. Subsequently, he came to know that the OP instead of purchasing the land at Mohali had purchased a piece of land in Village Chappar Chirri, District Mohali for the construction of the flats. He was also surprised to know from the contents of the letter received by him from the OP that it was not having approval from the Government and without that approval it collected the amount from him. This act of the OP in collecting the amount towards the cost of the flat without the approval of the Government amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the complaint he prayed for the issuance of following directions to the OP:-
First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 3
i) to refund the sum of Rs.2,08,500/- paid on account of cost of 3 bedroom flat along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
ii) to award damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the increase in prices of flat/property during the last three years.
iii) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused at the instance of the OP.
iv) to award litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
3. The OP did not come present before the District Forum in spite of its service and was proceeded against ex parte.
4. The complainant in support of his averments made in the complaint produced the evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on his behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the OP at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. After having gone through the grounds of appeal and the records of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The only ground pleaded in the grounds of appeal for setting aside the impugned order is that its absence from the District Forum was neither wilfull nor deliberate and was on account of the intentional stating of its wrong First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 4 address by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Thus, in fact, by means of this appeal the OP wants to get the impugned order set aside on the ground that the order, vide which it was proceeded against ex parte, could not have been passed.
7. In the appeal, the OP has given the following address:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh."
In the complaint, the complainant had given the following address of the OP:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), 175, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through its President. 2nd Address:
SCO 528, (SF), Sector-70, Mohali."
8. The complainant proved on record a number of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, which pertain to the OP and consists of the letter, receipts, demand order and the certificate. In all these documents the same address of the OP has been given as was given by the complainant in the complaint. Then how it can be said that he intentionally gave a wrong address in order to obtain ex parte order from the District Forum? It is not a case where the service of the OP was declared to have been effected on account of non-receipt of the registered cover, in which a notice was sent, after the expiry of 30 days. The service was duly effected as is apparent from the order First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 5 passed by the District Forum on 29.2.2009. Thus, there is nothing on the record, which may prove the said ground taken up by the OP in the grounds of appeal. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
9. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 3.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 05, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.12 of 2010
Date of institution : 06.01.2010 Date of decision : 05.04.2013 National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant- OP Versus Rajiv Dhawan, H.No.48, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 5.3.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Shri Gaurav Bhayya Gilhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP, National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Rajeev Dhawan, was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,08,500/- First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 2
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation and on the payment of the refund amount within 30 days, he was to be ceased to be a Member of the OP.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint by the complainant, OP, which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, floated a scheme under which the registered members of the Society could have purchased four bedroom set or three bedroom set from it in Mohali. He was told by the OP that the flats will be constructed at Mohali as the land for the same had been finalized. He paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.1.2006 vide receipt No.751. The OP, vide letter dated 17.4.2008 made a demand of Rs.58,500/- and he paid that amount, vide receipt No.1700. After the formalities were completed, he was issued the membership certificate. Subsequently, he came to know that the OP instead of purchasing the land at Mohali had purchased a piece of land in Village Chappar Chirri, District Mohali for the construction of the flats. He was also surprised to know from the contents of the letter received by him from the OP that it was not having approval from the Government and without that approval it collected the amount from him. This act of the OP in collecting the amount towards the cost of the flat without the approval of the Government amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the complaint he prayed for the issuance of following directions to the OP:-
First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 3
i) to refund the sum of Rs.2,08,500/- paid on account of cost of 3 bedroom flat along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
ii) to award damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the increase in prices of flat/property during the last three years.
iii) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused at the instance of the OP.
iv) to award litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
3. The OP did not come present before the District Forum in spite of its service and was proceeded against ex parte.
4. The complainant in support of his averments made in the complaint produced the evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on his behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the OP at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. After having gone through the grounds of appeal and the records of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The only ground pleaded in the grounds of appeal for setting aside the impugned order is that its absence from the District Forum was neither wilfull nor deliberate and was on account of the intentional stating of its wrong First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 4 address by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Thus, in fact, by means of this appeal the OP wants to get the impugned order set aside on the ground that the order, vide which it was proceeded against ex parte, could not have been passed.
7. In the appeal, the OP has given the following address:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh."
In the complaint, the complainant had given the following address of the OP:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), 175, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through its President. 2nd Address:
SCO 528, (SF), Sector-70, Mohali."
8. The complainant proved on record a number of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, which pertain to the OP and consists of the letter, receipts, demand order and the certificate. In all these documents the same address of the OP has been given as was given by the complainant in the complaint. Then how it can be said that he intentionally gave a wrong address in order to obtain ex parte order from the District Forum? It is not a case where the service of the OP was declared to have been effected on account of non-receipt of the registered cover, in which a notice was sent, after the expiry of 30 days. The service was duly effected as is apparent from the order First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 5 passed by the District Forum on 29.2.2009. Thus, there is nothing on the record, which may prove the said ground taken up by the OP in the grounds of appeal. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
9. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 3.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 05, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.12 of 2010
Date of institution : 06.01.2010 Date of decision : 05.04.2013 National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant- OP Versus Rajiv Dhawan, H.No.48, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
......Respondent- Complainant First Appeal against the order dated 5.3.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Shri Gaurav Bhayya Gilhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP, National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Rajeev Dhawan, was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,08,500/- First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 2
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation and on the payment of the refund amount within 30 days, he was to be ceased to be a Member of the OP.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint by the complainant, OP, which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, floated a scheme under which the registered members of the Society could have purchased four bedroom set or three bedroom set from it in Mohali. He was told by the OP that the flats will be constructed at Mohali as the land for the same had been finalized. He paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 5.1.2006 vide receipt No.751. The OP, vide letter dated 17.4.2008 made a demand of Rs.58,500/- and he paid that amount, vide receipt No.1700. After the formalities were completed, he was issued the membership certificate. Subsequently, he came to know that the OP instead of purchasing the land at Mohali had purchased a piece of land in Village Chappar Chirri, District Mohali for the construction of the flats. He was also surprised to know from the contents of the letter received by him from the OP that it was not having approval from the Government and without that approval it collected the amount from him. This act of the OP in collecting the amount towards the cost of the flat without the approval of the Government amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the complaint he prayed for the issuance of following directions to the OP:-
First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 3
i) to refund the sum of Rs.2,08,500/- paid on account of cost of 3 bedroom flat along with 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
ii) to award damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the increase in prices of flat/property during the last three years.
iii) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused at the instance of the OP.
iv) to award litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.
3. The OP did not come present before the District Forum in spite of its service and was proceeded against ex parte.
4. The complainant in support of his averments made in the complaint produced the evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on his behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as no one appeared on behalf of the OP at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. After having gone through the grounds of appeal and the records of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The only ground pleaded in the grounds of appeal for setting aside the impugned order is that its absence from the District Forum was neither wilfull nor deliberate and was on account of the intentional stating of its wrong First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 4 address by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Thus, in fact, by means of this appeal the OP wants to get the impugned order set aside on the ground that the order, vide which it was proceeded against ex parte, could not have been passed.
7. In the appeal, the OP has given the following address:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.) through its Chairman, Lt. Col. P.J.S. Mehta, Babe Ke, Near Furniture Market, Sector 53, Chandigarh."
In the complaint, the complainant had given the following address of the OP:-
"National Consumer Awareness Group Society (Regd.), 175, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through its President. 2nd Address:
SCO 528, (SF), Sector-70, Mohali."
8. The complainant proved on record a number of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, which pertain to the OP and consists of the letter, receipts, demand order and the certificate. In all these documents the same address of the OP has been given as was given by the complainant in the complaint. Then how it can be said that he intentionally gave a wrong address in order to obtain ex parte order from the District Forum? It is not a case where the service of the OP was declared to have been effected on account of non-receipt of the registered cover, in which a notice was sent, after the expiry of 30 days. The service was duly effected as is apparent from the order First Appeal No.12 of 2010. 5 passed by the District Forum on 29.2.2009. Thus, there is nothing on the record, which may prove the said ground taken up by the OP in the grounds of appeal. We do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
9. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 3.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 05, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER