State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nghi Developers India Ltd. And Others vs Urmala Kumari And Others on 30 September, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.36 of 2023
Date of institution : 17.01.2023
Reserved On : 30.08.2024
Date of decision : 30.09.2024
1. NGHI Developers India Limited, F-117, 1st Floor, City Star
Complex, Central Spine, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302001, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. NGHI Developers India Limited, Guru Ram Dass Nagar,
Ferozepur City, Punjab, through its Director Pippal Singh.
3. NICER NGHI Developers India Limited, Head Office B-36,
Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110056, through its
Chairman/Managing Director.
4. NICER NGHI Developers India Limited, outside Zira Gate,
near Anaj Mandi, Ferozepur City, through its Authorized
Signatory.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 5 & 6
Versus
1. Urmala Kumari wife of Sh. Harbans Lal, Resident of Kamboj
Nagar, Ferozepur City.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Bakshish Singh, Director, NGHI Developers India Limited,
Resident of Village Chack Somian Wala, P.O. Guruhar Sahai,
District Ferozepur, Punjab.
3. Avtar Singh, Director, NGHI Developers India Limited,
Resident of Village Chack Somian Wala, P.O. Guruhar Sahai,
District Ferozepur, Punjab.
....Performa Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 & 4
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ferozepur in CC No.284 of
2015.
First Appeal No.36 of 2023 2
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the Appellants : None
For Respondent No.1 : Sh. Kashish Garg, Advocate
For respondent No.2&3 : Service Dispensed with vide
Order dated 10.03.2023.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
This order of ours shall dispose off total 8 First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.36 of 2023, First Appeal No.37 of 2023, First Appeal No.38 of 2023, First Appeal No.39 of 2023, First Appeal No.40 of 2023, First Appeal No.41 of 2023, First Appeal No.42 of 2023 and First Appeal No.43 of 2023, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
First Appeal No.36 of 2023
Appellants/OPs No.1, 2, 5 & 6 have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 2019') against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, "the District First Appeal No.36 of 2023 3 Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant had been partly allowed by issuing direction to the OPs to refund jointly and severally an amount of ₹5 lac along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of deposit i.e. 25.01.2012 till its realization and also to pay compensation of ₹20,000/-.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. It is relevant to mention that the initially, the Complaint filed by respondent No.1/Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1986') was decided by the District Commission vide order dated 27.01.2016 by issuing certain directions to the OPs. Being aggrieved by said order, the OPs had filed Appeal before this Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2017 along with the bunch of other similar cases. The impugned order passed by the District Commission was set aside subject to costs of ₹6,000/- out of ₹5,000/- was to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission and the remaining amount of ₹1,000/- was to be paid to Respondent No.1/Complainant. The case was remanded by this Commission to the District Commission for deciding the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the OPs to file their written First Appeal No.36 of 2023 4 version and to lead evidence. Further a direction was issued to the OPs to deposit the principal amount of ₹5 lac with the District Commission, which was to be disbursed at the time of final decision of the Complaint. The OPs had challenged the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by this Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of filing the Revision Petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2018 along with the bunch of other similar Revision Petitions. Thereafter, the OPs had filed SLP Nos.26791 to 26798 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were disposed off vide order dated 08.05.2019. Said order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
"Upon hearing the Counsel, the Court made the following:
Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 15Y of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to submit that the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would not be competent to consider and decide the controversy involved in the matter.
The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions before the District Forum to which matter now stands remanded. As and when such objection is taken, the District Forum may consider the same purely on merits.
These special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly. We have not expressed and shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the contention.
Pending Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
4. Thereafter, the Appellants/OPs No.1,2,5 & 6 had appeared before the District Commission.
5. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal, are that Respondent No.1/Complainant had filed Complaint before the District Commission with the averments that the OPs were doing the business under the name and style of 'NGHI First Appeal No.36 of 2023 5 Developers India Limited'. They had introduced certain policies/schemes in the market, which were got published. Being allured by the OPs, the Complainant had invested an amount of ₹5 lac under policy No.0158816, having Registration No.1800090294 dated 25.01.2012 with them at Ferozepur. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of a plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or she would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. The Complainant had approached the OPs on the date of maturity for getting the benefits under the said policy. However, the matter was put off on one pretext or the other by the OPs. The aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs was stated to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'. The Complaint was filed before the District Commission with the following prayer:
i) to transfer ownership with possession of plot measuring 7995 sq. yds. or to make payment of ₹6,15,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 24.01.2014 till its realization;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; and
iii) to pay ₹11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
6. Initially, the OPs had not appeared before the District Commission despite service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte vide orders dated 21.09.2015 and 30.12.2015. However, after remand of the matter by this Commission vide order dated 10.10.2017, the OP had appeared before the District Commission and had also First Appeal No.36 of 2023 6 filed written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
7. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per Section 15-Y of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
8. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @8% from the date of deposit i.e. 25.01.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. Opposite parties are jointly and severally held liable to comply with the order. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending Application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
9. Said order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/OPs No.1,2, 5 & 6 by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments. First Appeal No.36 of 2023 7
10. None has appeared on behalf of the Appellants. However, in the grounds, it has been mentioned that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is based on conjectures and surmises and has been passed without appreciating the evidence and pleadings of the OPs. The Complainant had concocted and fabricated the facts with a motive to prejudice the mind of the District Commission. The onus to prove the averments of the Complaint was upon the Complainant herself but she had failed to do so. It has further been mentioned that the Complainant was not falling under the definition of 'Consumer' as defined under the Act, as she had invested the amount with the OPs for commercial purpose. It has further been mentioned that Mr. Pippal Singh is one of the Directors of Nicer Green Housing and Infrastructure Developer and there was no Complaint against the Company. However, some Complaints were moved to SEBI due to some extraneous consideration and in the preliminary inquiry, it was observed that the Company was engaged in fund mobility activities from the public through certain schemes as per the provisions of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992. The SEBI had directed the Company and its promoters vide interim ex parte order-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2012 to immediately stop collecting the money directly or indirectly from the investors. Being aggrieved against the issuance of said Show Cause Notice dated 9.7.2012, the Appellants had approached to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, First Appeal No.36 of 2023 8 Jaipur Bench by way of filing Civil Writ petition No. 10585/2012 for quashing the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the SEBI. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 7.8.2012 had directed the SEBI to decide the matter within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of reply of the petition. Thereafter, the Appellants had filed reply before the SEBI on 27.08.2012. Subsequently, vide order dated 6.11.2012, the SEBI had directed the Appellants to close the scheme and to refund the amount received by them under the scheme within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order passed by the SEBI. However, the Appellants filed an Appeal bearing No. 225/2013 before the Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, who had passed an order to maintain status quo till the disposal of the Appeal. Ultimately, the Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed by vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure A-7). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the Tribunal, the Appellants had filed Civil Appeal No. 10651 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was admitted vide order dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure A-8).
11. Further, again certain Complaints were filed before the SEBI against the Nicer Green Housing and Infrastructure Developer Limited Company. The SEBI vide order dated 28.7.2014 had directed the Appellant Company not to collect any fresh payment/amount from the investors under its existing scheme and also not to launch new First Appeal No.36 of 2023 9 scheme. Further, a direction was issued to the Company to submit full inventory of the assets owned by it and not to dispose off any of the properties or to alienate the assets of the existing scheme and also not to divert the funds. The Appellant Company was also directed to furnish all the information/details sought by the SEBI. Thereafter, the SEBI had passed order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure A-9) under section 11 (1), 11(B), and 11 (4) of the SEBI Act by directing the Company/its promoters/directors to immediately stop the collections of money directly or indirectly from investors under the schemes/plans and not to sell, dispose off the assets of NGHI.
12. It has been further mentioned that the District Commission had also not taken into consideration that as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, alternative remedy to the dispute was available and some cases were pending before the different courts/authorities but the same has not been provided. The dispute before the District Commission was already subject matter before SEBI. As per Section 15Y of SEBI Act 1992, the Civil Court or any other authority was not having the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which is a subject matter before the Board.
13. It has been further mentioned that a false FIR No.191 under Section 420, 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station, Ferozepur against the Appellants. The investigation thereof was First Appeal No.36 of 2023 10 handed over to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur vide order dated 24.05.2017. During the investigation, all the documents were collected from the Investigation Agency by the SIT and it was concluded that on 12.03.2013, the SEBI had issued a direction first to close the Company of Pippal Singh in the name of NAISER Green Forest and the entire record pertaining to said Company was made available with SEBI. On 09.11.2020, the SEBI had passed the order, whereby Mr. Manjeet Singh was appointed as Liquidator and had also issued direction to return the required amounts to the customers. In compliance of said order, the Liquidator had paid certain amounts to certain persons through cheques. The property, which is in the name of the Company, is under the authority of the Liquidator, who can pay the amount to the customers as per rules.
14. It has been further mentioned that the Appellant Company had also filed the bail Application before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide CRM-M No.14044/2018 on the ground that since the cognizance had been taken by the SEBI, so the Magistrate was not having the powers to try the FIR case. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure A-10) had directed SEBI/State Government to take necessary steps to put up the cases before the proper Court. Meaning thereby, even the Criminal Courts are not having any power to entertain any case, which is triable before the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 11 SEBI. In compliance of said order, the State of Punjab had filed the Transfer Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that they did not have the jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had stayed the proceedings pending before the Trial Court at Ferozepur, vide order dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure A-11). At the end, It has further been mentioned that quantification of loss is a prerequisite for awarding compensation under section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the damages had been illegally awarded while passing the impugned order. Moreover, there is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs and as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. Mr. Kashish Garg, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record and no interference is required. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the remand order dated 10.10.2017 passed by this Commission was conditional and the OPs were required to deposit the principal amount with the District Commission. However, the OPs had not deposited the principal amount with the District Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission had further granted time to the OPs to deposit said amount with the District Commission within a period of 45 days. The SLP filed by the OPs before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed. Meaning thereby, the order for deposit of First Appeal No.36 of 2023 12 principal amount by the OPs before the District Commission had not been complied with. However, the District Commission had wrongly decided the Complaint and had failed to appreciate the conditional order passed by the State Commission, which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
16. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant. None had appeared on behalf of the Appellants on the last 7 dates of hearing i.e. 07.08.2023, 20.10.2023, 20.12.2023, 23.02.2024, 09.04.2024, 03.07.2024 and 30.08.2024 i.e. at the time of final arguments of the case. Even the written arguments were not filed. On 03.07.2024, the case was adjourned subject to costs of ₹2,000/- to be deposited by the OPs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 30.08.2024. However, neither the amount of costs was deposited nor anyone had appeared on behalf of the Appellants/OPs to argue the case. However, we have also carefully perused the grounds of Appeal, the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
17. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, partly allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeal First Appeal No.36 of 2023 13 by the Appellants/OPs No.1,2, 5 & 6 before this Commission are not in dispute.
18. Admittedly, the Complaint was earlier decided by the District Commission vide order dated 27.01.2016 by issuing certain directions to the OPs. Being aggrieved by said order, the OPs had filed the Appeal before this Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2017 along with the bunch of other similar cases. The relevant portion of said order date 10.10.2017 passed by this Commission is reproduced as under:
"15. In view of our above discussion, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to costs of ₹6,000/-; out of which ₹5,000/- shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum and the remaining amount of ₹1,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.1/Complainant.
16. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the Complaint on merits. It is made clear that on the date of appearance given by this Commission, the Appellants/opposite parties No.1,2,5 & 6 shall positively appear before the District Forum and file their reply(s) and evidence, along with affidavits and documents whatsoever, if they intend to produce as evidence. The Complainant shall also be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence, if any, to be led by them. Thereafter, the District Forum shall decide the Complaint afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
17. The opposite parties shall also deposit the principle amount ₹5,00,000/-, invested by the Complainant with them, with the District Forum. The District Forum shall deposit the same in the shape of FDR in a nationalized Bank and the fate of the said amount shall be decided at the time of final decision of the Complaint by it. ..............................
68. It is made clear that in case the opposite parties shall not deposit the principle amounts aforementioned in all the Complaints within the stipulated period of 60 days, then all the Appeals preferred by the Appellants/opposite parties No.1,2,5 & 6 shall automatically stand dismissed, for non-compliance of the directions given by way of this order."First Appeal No.36 of 2023 14
19. The OPs had challenged the said order dated 10.10.2017 passed by this Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of filing the Revision Petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2018 along with the bunch of other similar Revision Petitions. The relevant portion of said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is reproduced as under:
"4 While restoring the Complaints to the Board of the District Forum, the State Commission has directed the Petitioners to deposit the principal amount of ₹5,00,000/-, deposited by the Complainants with them, in the District Forum within 60 days from the date of the order, which amount has been directed to be kept in a fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank and shall abide by the final results in the Complaints. The State Commission has also clarified that in case the Petitioners fail to make the requisite deposits within the stipulated period, their Appeals shall stand dismissed automatically for non- compliance with the afore-noted directions.
2. Aggrieved by the direction for deposit of the aforesaid amounts, as a condition precedent for revival of the Complaints, the Petitioners are before us.
3. The sole ground of challenge to the said direction is that it is too onerous, as the main functionary of the Petitioner Company is in judicial custody.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel and perused the documents on record, as also bearing in mind the fact that the aforestated amounts had been deposited by the Complainants with the Petitioners as far back as in the year 2012 and further, despite service of notice in the Complaints, the Petitioners did not put in appearance to contest the Complaints, the State Commission felt it prudent to put the Petitioners on terms, to test their bonafides, whether they were genuinely interested in adjudication of the dispute, subject-matter of the Complaints or were adopting dilatory tactics to protract the litigation. It may be noted that in the first place, while allowing the Complaints file by the Complainants, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to refund to the Complainants the principal amounts deposited by them along with interest @ of 9% p.a. from 24.1.2018 till realization, along with a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation in each of the cases for causing harassment and mental agony to them. If the said interest element, as awarded by the District Forum is taken into consideration, which, according to learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would be in the range of ₹2,50,000/- in each of the cases, as also the fact that the aforesaid amount, directed to be deposited, is not released to the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 15 Complainants, in our view the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in issuing the impugned directions, primarily to balance equities between the parties, inasmuch as having deposited the amounts as far back as in the year 2012 on the assurance that they will be allotted plots after getting the ownership of the land transferred in the name of the Petitioner Company, the Complainants are still waiting for the plots or the refund of the amounts deposited.
4. For the afore-going reasons, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.
5. As on account of failure on the part of the Petitioners to make the requisite deposits within the time granted, in terms of the afore-noted clarification by the State Commission their Appeals stand dismissed yet we direct that if the Petitioners still make the requisite deposits within 45 days from today and move appropriate applications before the District Forum with proof of the said deposits, the Complaints shall be revived for being decided on merits in terms of the directions issued in the impugned order.
6. All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms."
20. Thereafter, the OPs had filed SLP Nos.26791 to 26798 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were disposed off vide order dated 08.05.2019. Said order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
"Upon hearing the Counsel, the Court made the following:
Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 15Y of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to submit that the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would not be competent to consider and decide the controversy involved in the matter.
The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions before the District Forum to which matter now stands remanded. As and when such objection is taken, the District Forum may consider the same purely on merits.
These special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.
We have not expressed and shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the contention.
Pending Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."First Appeal No.36 of 2023 16
21. Thereafter, the Appellants/OPs had appeared before the District Commission and had filed an Application for dismissal of the Complaint in view of Section 15Y of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992. The District Commission while partly allowing the Complaint vide impugned order had also disposed off the said Application by holding that it was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The Appellants have challenged the impugned order qua to maintainability of the Complaint as well as on merits by way of filing the present Appeal.
22. Firstly, the issue of maintainability of the Complaint before the District Commission is to be decided.
23. It is relevant to mention that the Complainant had availed the service of the OPs by paying an amount of ₹5 lac to them under Policy No.0158816 having Registration No.1800090294 on 25.01.2012 on the assurance given by the OPs that on the date of maturity, the Complainant would become the owner of plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or she would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/-. This fact is evident from the Certificate (Ex.C-2) issued by the OPs. Therefore, the Complainant had become the 'consumer' of the OPs as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of Act of 1986 (now Section 2 (7) of Act of 2019) by availing their 'service' as defined under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act of 1986 (now Section 2 (42) of the Act of 2019).
First Appeal No.36 of 2023 17
24. The OPs have relied upon Section 15 of the SEBI Act, which is reproduced as under:
"15-Y: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer appointed under this Act or a Securities Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance or any power conferred by or under this Act."
25. It would be appropriate to refer to the aim/object of the Act of 1986 as well as the Act of 2019, which is reproduced as under:
"An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer's disputes and for matters connected therewith."
26. A perusal of preamble to the Act shows that it is meant to provide better protection for the interests of Consumers. For that purpose, the provision has been made under the Act for establishment of Consumer Commissions and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes/matters connected therewith. The salient features of the Consumer Protection Bill were to promote and protect the rights of consumers, such as:-
"(a) The right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(b) The right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c ) The right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of goods at competitive prices;
(d) The right to be heard and to be assured that consumers interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;
(e) The right to seek Redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and First Appeal No.36 of 2023 18
(f) Right to consumer education."
27. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the redressal mechanisms at District, State and National levels have been set up for the redressal of the genuine grievances of consumers with regard to the matters relating to 'defect in goods', 'deficiency in service', 'restrictive trade practice' and 'unfair trade practice" of the Act. By establishing the Consumer Commissions, the legislature has provided a special remedy for the redressal of the said wrong doings, which is in addition to the remedy as has been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure and the MRTP Act (now known as Competition Act). The remedy provided under the Act of 1986 or the Act of 2019 is a special remedy with the object of redressal of the grievance of the affected Consumers in an expeditious and non-expensive manner.
28. Section 3 of the Act of 1986 (now Section 100 of the Act of 2019) is relevant in the present context, which is reproduced as under:
"3. Act not in derogation of any other law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
29. On perusal of Section 3 of the Act of 1986, it is apparent that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Moreover, by introduction of SEBI Act, the jurisdiction of the Act of 1986 or the Act of 2019 is not specifically ousted. Further, the dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts was between the OPs- First Appeal No.36 of 2023 19 NGHI and SEBI and the Complainant was not party anywhere to those proceedings.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, has also discussed the background, the object and reasons and the purpose, for which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. By referring to its earlier judgments in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"11. The preamble of the Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In Section 3 of the Act in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
12. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi-judicial forums are set up at the district, State and national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders."
31. In another case of Kishori Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corporation 2007(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 68, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"17.......... The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 20 jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated."
32. In one more case of National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the protection provided to the consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute. In the following judgments also, the scope and reach of the Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i) Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385;
ii) Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited (2000) 5 SCC 294;
iii) State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (2003) 2 SCC 412;
iv) CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2003) 7 SCC 233; and
v) H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230.
33. In view of the ratio of the law as laid down in the above- said judgments, the provisions of the SEBI Act will not debar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission in entertaining the Complaints filed by a 'Consumer' alleging 'deficiency in service', 'negligence' and adoption of 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the 'service provider' i.e. the OPs.
34. As far as the other plea of the OPs that the Complainant First Appeal No.36 of 2023 21 had made investment with the OPs for having the plots for resale and as such she was not falling under the definition of 'consumer' is concerned, it is relevant to mention that no evidence has been produced by the OPs on record to prove that the Complainant was indulging in any commercial activities such as sale/purchase of plots etc. The Hon'ble National Commission has held in Meghna Singh Khera and Ors. v. Unitech Ltd., 1 (2020) CPJ 93 (NC) as under:-
"....
15. Another contention of the Opposite Party was that the purchase of the residential unit was for commercial purpose and the Complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The expression commercial purpose used in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act came up for consideration of this Commission in Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estates Ltd., CC 137 of 2010 decided on 12-02-2015 and the following view was taken:
"The expression 'commercial purpose' has not been defined in the Act and therefore, as held herein below by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, we have to go by the dictionary meanings, "In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning 'Commercial' denotes "pertaining to commerce"
(Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means "connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile, having profit as the main aim" (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word 'commerce' means "financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise on a large scale" (Concise Oxford Dictionary)".
6. Going by the Dictionary meaning of the expression 'Commerce' as far as hiring or availing services are concerned, a person can be said to have hired or availed services only if they are connected or related to the business or commerce in which he is engaged. In other words, the services in order to exclude the hirer from the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act should be availed for the purpose of promoting, advancing or augmenting an activity, the primary aim of which is to earn profit with use of the said services. It would ordinarily include activities such as manufacturing, trading or rendering services. In the case of the purchase of houses which the service provider undertakes to construct for the purchaser, the purchase can be said to be for a First Appeal No.36 of 2023 22 commercial purpose only where it is shown that the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses and / or plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit by sale of such houses. If however, a house to be constructed by the service provider is purchased by him purely as an investment and he is not undertaking the trading of houses on a regular basis and in the normal course of the business profession or services in which he is engaged, it would be difficult to say that he had purchased houses for a commercial purpose. A person having surplus funds available with him would not like to keep such funds idle and would seek to invest them in such a manner that he gets maximum returns on his investment. He may invest such funds in a Bank Deposits, Shares, Mutual Funds and Bonds or Debentures etc. Likewise, he may also invest his surplus funds in purchase of one or more houses, which is/are proposed to be constructed by the service provider, in the hope that he would get better return on his investment by selling the said house(s) on a future date when the market value of such house (s) is higher than the price paid or agreed to be paid by him. That by itself would not mean that he was engaged in the commerce or business of purchasing and selling the house (s).
7. Generating profit by way of trading, in my view is altogether different from earning capital gains on account of appreciation in the market value of the property unless it is shown that the person acquiring the property was engaged in such acquisition on a regular basis and it was by way of a business activity."
16. The Complainants are senior citizens. Complainant No.1 is a retired Professor and Complainant No.2 is a homemaker. No evidence, whatsoever has been adduced to show that they are involved in any commercial activity. There is no merit in the contention of the Opposite Party that they are not consumers as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is just another routine, technical objection raised in the reply."
35. Therefore, the Complainant was falling under the definition of 'Consumer' and it is held that the District Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the Complaint filed by the Complainant.
36. Now, coming to merits of the case, the Complainant had availed the service of the OPs by paying an amount of ₹5 lac to them on 25.01.2012. This fact is evident from the Certificate (Ex.C-2) issued by the OPs. The plea of the Complainant is that after the date of First Appeal No.36 of 2023 23 maturity i.e. 24.01.2014, neither any plot was allotted to him nor the maturity amount of ₹6,15,000/- was paid and even the principal amount of ₹5 lac was not refunded by the OPs. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that they had offered the possession of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. to the Complainant vide letter (Annexure OP1/1) but due to global reduction, the Complainant had not taken the possession thereof as he could not get a buyer to purchase the said plot at higher rate. However, said plea of the OPs is without any substance, as neither any date of said letter of offer of possession of the plot has been mentioned in the reply filed by the OPs nor said letter has been produced on the record. Only there is mention of said letter (Annexure OP-1/1) in the reply but the same has not been produced on the record. Even no number or location of the plot was mentioned. Even the details of the land acquired by the OPs were not mentioned. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence on record, it cannot be said that any plot was offered to the Complainant. The amount paid by the Complainant to the OPs had been utilized by the OPs for their own purpose without bothering to comply with assurance made by them to the Complainant. No plausible explanation has been given by the OPs as to why the terms and conditions of the agreement/certificate were not fulfilled by them. Even in the grounds of Appeal, the Appellants/OPs have only emphasized on the fact that the District Commission had no jurisdiction in view of Section 15Y of the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 24 SEBI Act, 1992 but nothing has been mentioned on the merits of the case. Meaning thereby, the OPs have nothing to challenge the impugned order passed by the District Commission on merits.
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence available on the file, it is apparent that the OPs had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement/Certificate (Ex.C-2), as neither the agreed plot was allotted to the Complainant nor the maturity amount of ₹6,15,000/- was refunded. Even the principal amount of ₹5 lac has not been refunded despite lapse of a long period. The District Commission while passing the impugned order had issued the direction to the OPs to refund an amount of ₹5 lac along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of deposit i.e. 25.01.2012 till its realization and also to pay compensation of ₹20,000/-. No Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record as well as the law as applicable. There is no reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
38. It is also relevant to mention here that earlier while remanding the case to the District Commission vide order dated 10.10.2017, this Commission had also directed the OPs to deposit the principal amount of ₹5 lac with the District Commission. However, the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 25 OPs had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of filing the Revision Petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2018 along with the bunch of other similar Revision Petitions. The OPs were again directed to deposit the principal amount with the District Commission within a period of 45 days. Thereafter, the OPs had filed SLP Nos.26791 to 26798 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were disposed off vide order dated 08.05.2019 by remanding the case to the District Commission. While disposing off the SLP filed by the OPs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not set aside the direction issued by this Commission as well as the Hon'ble National Commission to the OPs to deposit the principal amount of ₹5 lac with the District Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had given liberty to the OPs to raise all the submissions before the District Commission with regard to maintainability of the Complaint. Meaning thereby, the order passed by this Commission for remand of the matter as well as to deposit the principal amount with the District Commission was not set aside but it was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Neither any comment was made on the conditional order passed by this Commission for deposit of the amount and even nor any relief was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the OPs. After passing of order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the OPs had appeared before the District Commission and contested the Complaint First Appeal No.36 of 2023 26 by way of filing written version and the application for dismissal of the Complaint was also filed. However, the principal amount was not deposited by the OPs before the District Commission. The District Commission had also not taken into consideration this material fact. In the present appeal, none had appeared on behalf of the Appellants on the last 7 dates of hearing and on 03.07.2024, the case was adjourned subject to costs of ₹2,000/- to be deposited by the OPs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 30.08.2024. However, neither the amount of costs was deposited nor anyone had appeared on behalf of the Appellants/OPs to argue the case. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to a case of dilatory tactics with the motive to prolong the litigation initiated by the Consumer i.e. Complainant, who had suffered not only the mental agony and harassment but also the financial loss, as her hard earned amount was utilized by the OPs for such a longer period but no benefit under the scheme was given to her. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.
39. In view of the discussion and the reasons as recorded above, the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
40. In the remaining Appeals also, initially the Complaints were filed by the Complainants, which were decided by the District First Appeal No.36 of 2023 27 Commission vide different orders by issuing certain directions to the OPs. Being aggrieved by said order, the OPs had filed Appeals before this Commission, which were allowed vide common order dated 10.10.2017 along with the bunch of other similar Appeals as mentioned above. The orders passed by the District Commission were set aside subject to costs of ₹6,000/- out of ₹5,000/- was to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission and the remaining amount of ₹1,000/- was to be paid to Respondent No.1/Complainant in each Appeal. The cases were remanded to the District Commission for deciding the same afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the OPs to file their written versions and to lead evidence. Further, a direction was issued to the OPs to deposit the principal amount of ₹5 lac with the District Commission in each case. Further, the OPs had challenged the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by this Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of filing the Revision Petition, which was dismissed vide common order dated 12.02.2018 along with a bunch of other similar Revision Petitions. Thereafter, the OPs filed SLP Nos.26791 to 26798 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were disposed off vide order dated 08.05.2019. Thereafter, the Appellants/OPs No.1,2,5 & 6 had appeared before the District Commission in all the Complaints. These details are common in all the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 28 Appeals, so the same is not required to be mentioned again. Only the certain relevant facts are necessary to be taken for consideration. First Appeal No.37 of 2023
41. In said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 18.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or she would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
42. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
43. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 29 jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @8% from the date of deposit i.e. 18.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
44. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.37 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.38 of 2023
45. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 31.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or he would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
46. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an First Appeal No.36 of 2023 30 Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
47. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @8% from the date of deposit i.e. 31.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
48. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.38 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.39 of 2023
49. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 23.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the First Appeal No.36 of 2023 31 Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or he would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
50. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
51. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit i.e.
23.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of First Appeal No.36 of 2023 32 its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
52. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.39 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.40 of 2023
53. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 25.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or he would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
54. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted. First Appeal No.36 of 2023 33
55. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit i.e. 25.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
56. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.40 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.41 of 2023
57. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 18.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or he would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and First Appeal No.36 of 2023 34 identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
58. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
59. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit i.e. 18.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."First Appeal No.36 of 2023 35
60. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.41 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.42 of 2023
61. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 23.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or she would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
62. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted. First Appeal No.36 of 2023 36
63. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit i.e.
23.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."
64. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.42 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld. First Appeal No.43 of 2023
65. Similarly, in said Appeal also, the Complainant being allured by the OPs had invested an amount of ₹5 lac on 31.01.2012 with them. The representative of the OPs had assured that the Complainant would become the owner of the plot measuring 7995 sq.yds. or she would get an amount of ₹6,15,000/- on the date of maturity. However, after the date of maturity, the OPs had not fulfilled First Appeal No.36 of 2023 37 their promise. The other averments of the Complaint were similar and identical prayer was made, as mentioned in First Appeal No.36 of 2023.
66. The OPs had filed their written version, wherein the averments as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. The OPs had also moved an Application for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the District Commission was not competent to entertain and decide the Complaint as per provisions of Section 15-Y of the SEBI Act, 1992. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainant, wherein the averments made in the Application were controverted.
67. By considering the Complaint and reply thereof filed by OPs as well as the Application filed by them, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 22.09.2022 by holding that the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-16 is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of what has been discussed above, the present Complaint is partly allowed. Now coming to relief clause, we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit i.e. 31.1.2012 till its actual realization and pay lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Pending application, if any, being disposed off accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after compliance."First Appeal No.36 of 2023 38
68. In view of the discussion and the reasons as held in First Appeal No.36 of 2023, the First Appeal No.43 of 2023 is dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- and the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
69. All the Appeals are disposed off accordingly.
70. The amount of cost imposed upon the appellants vide this order shall be paid by them to Respondent No.1/Complainant in all the Appeals within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
71. As per orders dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Commission in all the Appeals, the statutory amounts were deposited by the Appellants in the earlier Appeals, which were decided by this Commission vide common order dated 10.10.2017. In compliance of said order, the amounts deposited in all the Appeals were remitted by the Registry to the District Commission for keeping the amount in the shape of FDRs as well as to the Complainant(s) through different cheques of different dates. Therefore, the District Commission may pass the appropriate orders in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
72. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
First Appeal No.36 of 2023 39
73. The Appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER September 30, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)