National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Usha India Ltd. & Anr. vs Mrs. Kajal Bhattacharya on 8 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4671 OF 2008 (From order dated 09.09.2008 in First Appeal No. 827 of 2008 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) 1. M/s Usha India Ltd. B-704, Sterling Apartment, 9, University Road, Lucknow Through its Authorised Representative 2. Shri Jarnail Singh General Manager, Usha Chambers, Plot No. 20, Sector 11, CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai 400 614 Petitioners Versus Mrs. Kajal Bhattacharya R/o B-404, Raheja Residency M.G. Complex, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate Dated: 08.01.2015 O R D E R
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
-2-2. Smt. Kajal Bhattacharya, proprietor of M/s Elametics, a proprietorship firm, was offered shop/premises by the opposite parties/petitioners-M/s Usha India Ltd. and Shri Jarnal Singh, General Manager, M/s Usha India Ltd., opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively, in the year 1992. Allotment letter was given to the complainant on 12.3.1994. As per the allotment letter, the petitioners/opposite parties demanded Rs.6,48,200/-. The complainant paid Rs.4,60,227/- till June, 1999. The allegation of the complainant is that the possession has not been delivered to him for the last 13 years.
3. Both the fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties were directed to deliver the possession of shop/premises and to execute the agreement in favour of the purchaser. The fora below awarded Rs.18,000/-
for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant was directed to pay the residue amount at the time of delivery of shop/premises.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is a case regarding commercial purpose.
He has invited our attention towards the fact that the complainant is dealing in business. In her complaint, she has nowhere stated that it is for her personal use.
6. We are unable to locate any substance in his arguments. The complainant and her husband are running the above said business to earn their livelihood.
-3-The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence which may go to show that this firm has got a number of employees/labourers or they are not running it for their personal benefit. There lies no rub if a businessman transacts the business for his personal use only. This is a proprietorship firm. Consequently, this argument does not deserve any consideration.
7. The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a case barred by time because the cause of action had arisen on 27.12.2003 as is apparent from the pleadings made by the complainant himself.
8. This argument is advanced for its outright rejection. The possession has not been given to the complainant. Until the possession is given to the complainant, the cause of action will continue. This is a frivolous argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is liable to be dismissed.
9. The third submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Usha Chambers has filed an application for declaring the company as sick company and the same is pending consideration. The company is yet to be declared as Usha as sick company.
10. Until or unless, the company is declared as sick company, their lies no rub in passing the order.
11. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. There is huge delay in giving the possession of this shop. The case pertains to the year 1992 and 1994. More than 23 years have elapsed. It is well settled that justice delayed -4- is not only justice denied, it is also circumvented, justice mocked and system of justice undermind.
12. In view of this discussion, we direct the petitioner to put the complainant in possession of the shop within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, after receiving the balance amount at the time of giving the possession otherwise the petitioner will have to pay Rs.500/- per day as penalty till the possession is given to the complainant.
The compensation and costs awarded by the State Commission is not being disturbed. The same be paid also within 45 days otherwise, after the expiry of 45 days, it will carry interest @9% per annum till it is paid.
The case stands disposed of accordingly.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/15