State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arun Steel Corporation vs Skipper Groups Of Companies on 29 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 29-01-2007 Complaint Case No. C-165/97 M/s Arun Steel Corporation, Complainant Through its Registered Partner, Through Shri Arun Gupta, Mr. C.J. Gupta, X-36-A, Loha Mandi, Advocate. Naraina, New Delhi. Versus 1. Skipper Groups of Companies Opposite Party No. 1 22, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Also at Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi. 2. Shri Tejwant singh, Opposite Party No.2 Managing Director, Skipper Group of Companies Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Near Gole Market, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant applied for allotment of two independent flats of 500 sq. ft. at Jhandewalan Extension and deposited a sum of Rs. 11.00 lacs vide receipt No. SC/01/1609 and No. SC/01/1610. The complainant had been pursuing the matter with the OP and ultimately neither the flats have been given nor the money has been refunded. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 20.00 lacs for the harassment and mental agony.
2. In its defence O.P.-Skipper Groups of Companies took the following plea:-
(i) That the complainant is not a registered partner of the claimant-M/s Arun Steel Corporation and has to support his contention by filing documentary proof. Nothing is on record to show whether the partnership firm is registered or not or whether Mr. Arun Gupta is a registered partner and as such complaint is not maintainable.
(ii) That the claimant is not a consumer as it applied for allotment of two independent flats on 500 sq. ft.
each Jhandewalan Extension and deposited a sum of Rs. 11.00 lacs and since it is a commercial transaction the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission. Furthermore, the complainant is not being an individual person is not a consumer. Even otherwise the OP believes that the amounts have been refunded and received by the complainant as per directions of Honble Supreme Court of India.
(iii) That the alleged complaint relates to Jhandewalan Complex which has been subject matter of the settlement of claims of Honble Mr. Jutice R.C. Lahoti and subsequent thereto Honble O. Chennappa Reddy Commission.
That as per detailed submission made in the affidavit dated 19-11-1997 it is alleged in para 4 that directions have been issued for filing present complaint. The OP bonafidely believes that no such directions have been passed in favour of the complainant to approach Honble State Commission for their claims. Even othersie complainant has suppressed and concealed the factum of having received back the amount deposited by it in respect of alleged booking, being subject matter of the present complaint under directions of Honble Supreme Court.
(iv) That the complainant has not filed any of the directions of Honble Chennappa Reddy Commission and in fact there was no Chennappa Reddy Commission as stated in the affidavit except Honble Justice R.C. Lahoti was appointed at the first instance to enquire into the matters of various depositors in the said project and Honble Justice O. Chennappa Reddy was appointed to enquire into other affairs of the matter like officers of the DDA and others who dealt with the project and other instances.
(v) The OP has relied upon the judgment reported in JT 1996 (4) SC page 679 in the case of DDA Vs. Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. According to that no suit is maintainable as per para 6 of the citation. The said project is Jhandewala Project and according to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court of India, Honble Justice R.C. Lahoti was appointed and he submitted his report after receiving all the complaints from the consumers by giving wide publicity and settled the claims as per directions of the Honeble Supreme court of India.
3. In support of his allegation the complainant has produced and proved the following documents:-
(i) Annexure G is the receipt dated 09-05-1992 for Rs. 5.50 lacs in respect of flat No. 1168.
(ii) Annexure H is Allotment Letter 09-05-1992 in respect of flat No. 1168.
(iii) Annexure J is the receipt dated 09-05-1992 for Rs. 5.50 lacs in respect of flat No. 1159A.
(iv) Annexure K is allotment letter dated 09-05-1992 in respect of flat No. 1159A.
(v) Annexure D is letter sent by the DDA to the complainant informing that the property in respect of which the flats have been allotted actually vests in the DDA.
4. So far as objections of OP are concerned these are completely devoid of substance as the cause of action in such type of cases is of a subsisting nature and continues till either the possession is handed over or refund is made as the case may be.
5. Similarly the objection that the appellant being a company purchased flats for commercial purpose is also not tenable as only two flats were purchased for personal use and not for further sale to earn profit. Complainant is not engaged in the business of sale and purchase of properties and therefore cannot be accused of having purchased the flats for commercial purpose. Admittedly project was abandoned as OP was not the absolute owner of the land over which he proposed to construct the flats.
6. As per condition No.2 of Allotment Letter-Annexure H if for any reason the whole or any part of the project is abandoned, no claim will be entertained except that the money will be refunded without any compensation or interest whatsoever. Even as per this condition OP was obliged to refund the amount received by it in case of abandonment of the project.
7. In view of the aforesaid terms of allotment coupled with the fact that OP indulged in unfair trade practice by misleading the complainant that the land actually belonged to them, the complaint is allowed in the following terms:-
(a) OP shall refund the money of Rs. 11.00 lacs received by it to the complainant.
(b) OP shall pay Rs.
50,000/- as compensation for misrepresentation as well as mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
(c) OP shall also pay Rs. 10,000/-
as cost of litigation./
8. Aforesaid payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
9. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 29th January, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj 0