Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel vs M/S. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private ... on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).715 OF 2021
KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S. S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“the National Commission”), for short in CC No.945 of 2019.
The aforesaid CC No.945 of 2019 preferred by 48 complainants has prayed for following reliefs:
“i. Pay to each of the complainants & to each buyer having same interest, compensatory interest @ 18% p.a. for abnormal & inordinate delay in handing over possession of flats to complainants, computing the total period of delay as indicated in Para 11.11 of the Consumer Complaint;
ii. Refund the illegally charged car parking fee Signature Not Verified to complainants & to each buyer having same Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2021.08.12 interest with an interest @ 18% p.a. & to hold the 18:01:16 IST Reason: OP guilty of committing unfair and restrictive trade practice against the complainants & also against each buyer having same interest;
iii. Refund to the complainants & to all buyers 2 having same interest, the excess and illegally charged “legal fee” at the actual with an interest @ 18% p.a. and also to declare the OP guilty of committing unfair & restrictive trade practice against the complainants and also against each buyer having same interest;
iv. Refund to the complainants & to all buyers having same interest, fee charged towards BESCOM & BWSSB charges after deducting as per actual with an interest @ 18% p.a. & also to declare the OP guilty of committing unfair and restrictive trade practice against the complainants & also against each buyer having same interest and/or v. Direct OPs to provide in time bound manner, Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store as promised in Brochure, else pay compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs to each complainant and to each buyer having same interest; and/or vi. Pass any other and/or further relief, which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the complainants and against the OP.” The complaint was filed on or about 29.05.2019.
The record indicates that around January, 2020 certain emails were addressed by the respondent-builder to individual complainants requesting them to contact the Legal Department in connection with the grievance raised in aforesaid C.C.No.945 of 2019. These emails were sent from January 2020 to June 2020.
Though the respondent-builder was thus well aware of the fact that the grievance raised by the complainants in the form of C.C.No.945 of 2019 was pending consideration before the National Commission, the Office of the National Commission was being reported that the notice of the complaints had remained unserved 3 upon the respondent - builder.
The order which is presently under challenge had recorded:
“Notice of the Compliant still remains unserved. Issue fresh notice of the Complaint along with all the pending applications to Opposite Party under Section 38(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 making it clear that if the Opposite Party wishes to contest the allegations in the Complaint, it may file the Written Statement within 30 days of the receipt of notice in the complaint, failing which its right to file written statement may be closed.” Taking exception to the aforesaid order, Mr. Gopal Jee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent was deliberately avoiding service of the complaint; and on some pretext or the other, the matter was getting adjourned before the National Commission. In his submission, the written statement had to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which the right to file written statement ought to have been foreclosed.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent accepts the fact that such emails were sent by the respondent-builder but submits that the concerned person had thereafter resigned from the respondent-company. To a query, as to the date when the person resigned, it is stated that said person resigned sometime in August-September, 2020. These facts conclusively show that the respondent-builder was well aware of the pendency of the aforesaid C.C.No.945 of 2019 4 before the National Commission.
The conduct on part of the respondent-builder in not filing written statement does not entitle him to any further benefit. It must, therefore, be declared that the respondent has forfeited his right to have filed written statement and it is hereby declared so. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The C.C.No.945 of 2019 shall now be proceeded further without the written statement of the respondent-builder. It shall however, be open to the respondent- builder to participate in the proceedings. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned Advocate urged that his client would be willing to enter into a dialogue with the complainants to reach a settlement through meaningful mediation.
The parties are therefore directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 23.08.2021 at 11.00 AM. It is made clear that in case the mediation does not result in any negotiated settlement, the matter shall be gone into on merits by the National Commission. Considering the facts and circumstances, we request the National Commission to take up the matter for disposal as early as possible.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal stands 5 allowed without any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
........................ J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT) ........................ J.
(AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 11, 2021.
6 ITEM NO.19 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 715/2021 KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS
M/S. S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED Respondent(s) Date : 11-08-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Appellant(s) Mr. Govind Jee, Advocate Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Ajesh Kumar Shankar, Adv Ms. Garima Jain, Adv Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv Mr. Aishwarya Choudary, Adv Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv Mr. Mohammed Shahrukh, Adv Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv Mr. Srihari S, Adv Ms. Amanda Chakravarti, Adv UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)