State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudha Anand, vs 1. Chief Administrator, Puda, Puda ... on 8 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Miscellaneous Application No. : 43 of 2013 Date of Institution : 26.04.2013 Date of Decision : 08.08.2013 Sudha Anand, r/o 4556, M.I.G. (S) Sector 70, Mohali Applicant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Chief Administrator, PUDA, PUDA Bhawan, Mohali. 2. Addl. Chief Administrator PUDA, PUDA Bhawan, Mohali. 3. Estate Officer, Mohali, PUDA Bhawan, Mohali. ....Non-applicants/respondents/Opposite Parties Miscellaneous Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C./Contempt of Court BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. R.N. Anand, husband of the applicant, in person.
Sh. Mukhbir Singh, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the non applicants/respondents PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This Miscellaneous Application, has been filed by Sudha Anand, applicant, through Sh. R.N. Anand, her husband, for transfer of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C./Contempt of Court, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only).
2. The allegations, contained in application, referred to above, are to the effect, that application under Section 340 Cr. P.C./Contempt of Court, was filed before this Commission, on 2nd April 2013, which was referred to the District Forum, for dealing with the same, as the Execution Application was decided by the said Forum. It was stated that on 22.04.2013, the reaction of the District Forum was not normal. It was further stated that, as such, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C./Contempt of Court, be transferred, from the District Forum (1) to District Forum (II) or this Commission.
3. Notice of this application, was given to the non-applicants/respondents/Opposite Parties, whose Counsel put in appearance, and stated that they (non-applicants/ respondents/Opposite Parties) did not want to file any reply.
4. We have heard Sh. R.N. Anand, husband of the applicant, the Counsel for the non-applicants/ respondents/Opposite Parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. It is settled principle of law, that a case from one Forum, to another Forum, can only be transferred, if there are legal and valid grounds, for doing so. Mere fanciful apprehension, in the mind of the applicant, that he/she will not get justice, from a particular Forum, where the matter was pending, could not be taken, as a sufficient ground, to transfer the matter/case, from one Forum to another Forum.
6. Reference to brief history of the litigation, which ensued between the parties, for the purpose of deciding the application, under disposal is necessary. Smt. Sudha Anand, applicant, filed Consumer Case No.297 of 2000, titled as Sudha Anand Vs. The Chief Administrator PUDA, Chandigarh and others, claiming various reliefs, which was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (1), Chandigarh, on 06.11.2007, with costs of Rs.10,000/-, by observing that the act and conduct of the complainant was unwarranted, as she unnecessarily filed various applications, and, thereby, wasted the precious time of the Court. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed First Appeal No.823/2007, before this Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2008, with no order as to cost. However, in para no.22 of the order, it was held that Rs.1 lacs would be required for rectifying the defects. As such, in this para Rs.1 lacs, were allowed against the respondents, for removing these defects. Still feeling aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner filed Revision Petition No.2322 of 2008, which was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 25.05.2010. It was observed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in its order, as under:-
However, after payments towards installment due are released by the petitioner, equity requires that respondents as was noticed by the State Commission should make necessary repairs in the structure to the extent indicated in their order
7. An Execution Application/Criminal Petition No.124 of 2012, was thereafter, filed by the complainant/Decree Holder/applicant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 21.11.2012, holding that the Additional Chief Administrator GAMADA had passed an order restoring the allotment of house, subject to payment of Rs.27,52,603/-, to the Estate Officer, by the Decree Holder, as on 29.12.2011. It was further held by the District Forum, in para no.6 of the order dated 21.11.2012 that after giving the benefit of Rs.1,50,000/, the Additional Chief Administrator, GAMADA, arrived at the sum of Rs.27,52,603/-, which was due against the complainant/Decree Holder, as on 29.12.2011. Still feeling aggrieved, the complainant/Decree Holder, filed First Appeal No.5/2013, under Section 27A, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was dismissed by this Commission, vide order dated 01.02.2013.
8. No doubt, Sh.
R.N. Anand, husband of the applicant, has submitted that when he appeared before the District Forum, in the application, under Section 340 Cr. P.C., he was put a query, that since the main case of the applicant, had been dismissed, and even appeal against the same had been dismissed, how the same (application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.) was maintainable. Even if, it assumed that such a query was put by the District Forum, to Sh. R.N. Anand, husband of the applicant, that did not mean that the applicant, did not expect justice from the said Forum. It could not be said that by putting such a query, reaction of the District Forum was not normal. Such a query might have been put, keeping in view the background of the case. Sh. R.N. Anand, husband of the applicant, appears to have entertained merely a fanciful apprehension, that justice shall not be dispensed to him, by the District Forum. The allegations, in the application are vague. The apprehension of the applicant is not grounded on sound footing. The conduct of the President and the Members of the District Forum could not be said to be such, as caused reasonable apprehension, in the mind of the applicant, that she would not get justice, from the said Forum. No legal, valid, reasonable and justified grounds exist for transfer of the application, in question, to some other Forum. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the application under disposal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. The order dated 30.04.2013, staying the pronouncement of final order, in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is vacated.
10. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11. The Miscellaneous Application file, be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.
12. The record of District Forum (1), be sent to it, alongwith the copy of this order immediately.
Pronounced.
August 8, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg