State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lt. Col. Himmat Singh Aulakh vs Army Welfare Housing Organisation on 6 November, 2020
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Review Application No.11 of 2020
In
Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019
Date of Institution : 19.10.2020
Order reserved on : 22.10.2020
Date of Decision : 06.11.2020
Lt. Col. Himmat Singh Aulakh S/o Sh. Col. Itbar Singh (Retd.), Modern
Apartment House No-Y-0502, Harbhajan Vihar, AWHO, Sector-114,
Mohali, 140307.
.....Applicant/Complainant
Versus
1. Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, South
Hutments, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011.
Email : [email protected]
2. Project Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, having its
office at Plot no.BB-1, CC-1, AWHO, Sector-114, S.A.S. Nagar,
Mohali, Punjab.
Email : [email protected]
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Review Application under Section 50 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the Applicants/Complainants: Sh. V.K. Padwal, Advocate with Sh. J.S. Bath, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:
The applicant/complainant has filed the present Review Application with a prayer to review the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019, vide Review Application No.11 of 2020 2 In Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019 which the complaint was dismissed, being beyond the limitation period of two years.
2. Brief facts, as set out in the application, are that the order under review dated 31.08.2020 passed by Additional Bench-1 is comprised of surmises and conjectures and without going into the merits of the case and completely ignored the fact that the OPs is yet to complete the project, as they have failed to obtain occupation/completion certificate from the concerned authority, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Even Sewage Treatment Plant is still under construction, hence major "health hazard". On an average 50-60 laborers still working daily in this complex to complete the project. Moreover, it was a forced possession and it is recurring cause of action for OPs, being not completed, as per the PDC i.e. March 2014. The Principal Bench of this Commission has allowed the similar complaint against the same OPs in Complaint No.890/2019 and five others (total six complaints) in its order dated 31.08.2020. The applicant has prayed to review the said order dated 31.08.2020 passed in CC/777/2019 and to allow the complaint for the natural jusice.
3. We have gone through the pleadings as pleaded in review application by the applicant and also perused the record.
4. The applicant pleaded that this Commission has power to review its order, in view of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings raised by the applicant/complainant. Review Application No.11 of 2020 3
In Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019
6. It is pertinent to mention that as per Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Commission has been conferred the power to review its own order, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or at the instance of aggrieved party within thirty days from the passing of the order. The question to be decided in this application is, whether there is any apparent error in the order dated 31.08.2020 passed in the complaint.
7. The complaint was dismissed, being barred by limitation and para no.14 of the order dated 31.08.2020, is reproduced as under:-
"14. First of all, we would like to deal with the plea of the OPs that complaint is barred by limitation. We have gone through the record carefully. The complainant had taken the physical possession of the said unit on 20.07.2017, vide Ex.C-8 and C-9 without any protest. Thereafter, he remained silent for more than two years till the date of filing this complaint i.e. 22.10.2019. In the instant complaint he has prayed for compensation on account of late delivery of possession after more than two years. From the date of taking over the physical possession of the unit till filing of the complaint on 22.10.2019, he neither raised any issue in this regard nor filed any complaint before the competent Forum during this period. We refer to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced as under:-
"24-A Limitation Period- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), a complaint be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complaint satisfies the District Review Application No.11 of 2020 4 In Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019 Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
The complainant has filed this complaint without any supporting application for condoning the delay with explanation and causes of delay. The cause of action had accrued in this case on 20.07.2017, when complainant had taken the possession, and complainant filed the complaint on 20.10.2019 after the expiry of limitation period i.e. 2 years. We are of the view that there is no need to decide the case on its merits, because the complaint filed by the complainant on 22.10.2019 is beyond the limitation period of two years, as per Section 24-A of the Act.
8. It is relevant to state that this pleading was also raised by the applicant/complainant in the complaint. The applicant/complainant has not produced on record any evidence with regard to incompletion of the project. Even till the date of filing of the review application, applicant has not been successful to bring any cogent evidence to show that the project was incomplete at the time of delivery of possession. Moreover, the applicant/complainant took the possession without any protest with open eyes, being an Army Officer and has been enjoying the facility of all the amenities provided by the OPs. The OPs had completed their responsibility, as they applied for completion/occupation certificate with GMADA under Section 14 of the PAPRA. They also made efforts to delink with occupation/completion certificate from Ansal's Group and to issue separate Review Application No.11 of 2020 5 In Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019 Completion/occupation certificate. They also approached higher authorities in this case. All this shows the positive approach of OPs and we have already discussed this point in detail in other complaints. We have seen the all fours of the matter and then decided the same on merits. Now at this belated stage he again raised the same question, which has already been decided by this Bench, and it seems to us that the complaint and review application have been filed only to get monetary benefits and undue advantage of the benevolent C.P. Act.
9. As far as the contention of the applicant regarding STP is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that there was no such pleading taken by him in the original complaint regarding the issue of STP and this point has already discussed in the order under review in the following M.A., the relevant part is reproduced as under:-
"M.A. Nos.676, 678, 680 & 682 of 2020 (placing on record documents):
2. The above applications have been filed by OPs in above complaints, for placing on record the photographs of constructed STP Ex.R/A (colly), which are vital and material in nature so as to the controvert the false allegations levelled by the complainant against OP no.1 society with respect to the aforesaid amenities.
3. The complainants filed reply to this application. The complainants stated that application filed by OPs for placing on record additional documents is sheer abuse of process of law, as there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act for placing on record these documents at this belated stage, when the pleadings have been completed and closed from the last five months. The OPs have been pumping the sewage wastage in the open and few photographs of the same are annexed as Ex.C-11. OPs have not obtained completion and occupation Review Application No.11 of 2020 6 In Consumer Complaint No.777 of 2019 certificate from the competent authority, which is mandatory to hand over and take over the legal possession of the dwelling unit. The complainants prayed for dismissal of these applications.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. There is no pleading or prayer regarding sewerage treatment plant (STP) in the complaints. So, there is no need to allow above applications.
Accordingly, these applications are disposed of."
10. In view of above discussions, there is no apparent error in order dated 31.08.2020 passed in the complaint and there is no merit in the Review Application and the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER November 06, 2020 MM