National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) ... vs Ramesh Chander Khurana on 16 January, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 3189 OF 2011.
alongwith
(I.A. No. 1 of 2011 )
( for Delay)
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 33 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35 B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M.
Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramesh Chander Khurana son of Sh. S. L.
Khurana
Allottee
and Resident of Flat No. 249-M, New Generation Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road,
Near Railway Crossing Zirakpur-140 603.
.
Respondent
2. The Government of Punjab through
i.
Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department)
Punjab.
ii.
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh U.T.
3. E. O. Nagar Council (Earlier NAC/NP)-
Zirakpur.
.Proforma
Respondents.
(2)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1889 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 630 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. , SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Kamal Arora, original Allottee and
Resident of Flat No. 432 on the 4th
Floor in Block H in New Generation Apartments Enclave at Dhakoli,
Zirakpur-Kalka Road, Distt. Punjab.
2. Smt. Indra
Singla W/o Sh. R. M. Singla, Director/Authorized Signatory of M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO
No. 373-374, Sector-35-B, Chadngiarh.
.Proforma Respondent.
(3) REVISION PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 41 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Bhushan Bawa son of Sh. B. R. Bawa
Allottee
and resident of Flat No. 249-M, New Generation Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road,
Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
. Respondent
2. The Government of Punjab through
i.
Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department)
Punjab.
ii.
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh UT.
3. E. O. Nagar Council (Earlier NAC/NP)-
Zirakpur.
.Proforma
Respondents.
(4) REVISION PETITION NO. 2088 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 632 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Veena Kapoor wife of Sh. Kamal Kishore Kapoor
Allottee
and resident of Flat No. 248, Second Floor, Block M New Generation
Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road, Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
.
Respondent
2. Smt. Indra Singla W/o Sh. R. M. Singla,
Director/Authorized Signatory of M/s New
Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No. 373-374, Sector-35-B, Chadngiarh.
.Proforma
Respondent.
(5) REVISION PETITION NO. 2089 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 39 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. M. K. Jinsi
son of Sh. J. N. Jinsi Allottee and resident of Flat No. 308-B,Generation
Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road, Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
. Respondent
2. The Government of Punjab through
i.
Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department)
Punjab.
ii.
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh UT.
3. E. O.
Nagar Council (Earlier NAC/NP)- Zirakpur.
.Proforma Respondents
(6) REVISION PETITION NO. 2090 OF 2011.
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. , SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Ikbal Krishan Kapoor son of Late Sh. Pran
Nath Kapoor
2. Veena Kapoor wife of Sh. Ikbal Krishan Kapoor both
Allottee
and resident of Flat No. 423-F, New Generation Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road,
Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
.
Respondent
3. The Government of Punjab through
iii.
Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department)
Punjab.
iv.
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh UT.
4. E. O. Nagar Council (Earlier NAC/NP)-
Zirakpur.
.Proforma Respondents
(7) REVISION PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 631 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. , SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Prem
Lata wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar Allottee
and resident of Flat No. 12-A, Block F, New Generation Apartments,
Zirakpur-Kalka Road, Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
2. Sh. Vikas
son of Sh. Vijay Kumar resident of Flat
No. 12-A, Block F, New Generation
Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road, Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
. Respondents
3. Smt. Indra Singla W/o Sh. R. M. Singla,
Director/Authorized Signatory of M/s New
Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No. 373-374, Sector-35-B, Chadngiarh.
.Proforma
Respondent
(8) REVISION PETITION NO. 2092 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 34 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. , SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M. Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramesh Chander Bawa
son of Late Sh. B. R. Bawa
Allottee
and resident of Flat No. 308-B, New Generation Apartments, Zirakpur-Kalka Road,
Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur-140 603.
.
Respondent
2. The Government of Punjab through
i.
Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department)
Punjab.
ii.
Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh UT.
3. E. O. Nagar Council (Earlier NAC/NP)-
Zirakpur.
.Proforma
Respondents
(9) REVISION PETITION NO. 2093 OF 2011
( From
order dated 27.04.2011 in Appeal No. 633 of 2009
of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh )
M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. , SCO No.
373-374. Sector-35-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. R. M.
Singla.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar son of Late
Sh. Om Parkash, resident of
House No. 802, Sector-4, Panchkula.
2. Smt. Anish Gupta wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar,
resident of
House
No. 802, Sector-4, Panchkula through their Attorney
Gulshan
Kumar # 802, Sector-4, Panchkula
Respondents
3. Sh. R. M.
Singla Director New Generation
Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd, SCO No. 373-374, Sector-35-B, Chadngiarh.
4. New General
Resident Welfare Society (Regd.) Flat No. 15-G,
New
Generation Apartments, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Punjab) through
Its
Chairman/Manager.
..
Proforma Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B.
GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Capt. Arun Sharma, Advocate with
Mr.
Dinesh Madra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr.
Ramesh Chander Khurana,
Respondent no.1 in R.P. No. 3189 of 2011
: Mr. Kamal Arora, Respondent no.1 in R.P. No.
1889 of 2011
:
Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bawa, Respondent no.1 in R.P. No. 2087 of 2011
: Mr. M.K. Jinsi, Respondent no.1 in R.P. No.
2089 of 2011
: Mr. Ramesh Chander Bawa, Respondent no.1 in
R.P. No. 2092 of 2011
: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Respondent no.1 in R.P. No.
2093 of 2011
Pronounced on: 16th January,
2013
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER ( I . A. No. 1 of 2011 for Delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned in (RP No. 3189 of 2011).
2. Above mentioned petitions have been filed against common order dated 27.4.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh(for short, State Commission). Vide impugned order, State Commission had set aside the order dated 18.12.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh.
3. Complainants who are respondent no. 1 before this Commission have entered into Apartment Buyer Agreement with the petitioner/OP No. 1 and respective flats were allotted to the complainants as per terms of the agreement. Complainants alleging deficiency on part of the petitioner, filed separate complaints before the District Forum.
4. Petitioner contested those complaints. It denied any deficiency on its part. It is also alleged that complainants alongwith New Generation Apartment Residential Society had filed (Civil Writ Petition No. 13667 of 2005) in Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was dismissed in limni. The said Association had also filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, present complaints are not maintainable.
5. Respondents who have appeared in person before this Commission have filed written reply to the present revision petitions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as sell as the respondents and have gone through the record.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the writ petition filed by the Society before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, present complaints are not maintainable. The order passed by the State Commission, may be set aside and order passed by the District Forum should be restored.
8. On the other hand, it has been contended by the complainants that present complainants were not a party in the above noted Writ Petition. Moreover, each of the complainant has sought separate relief before the District Forum. The District Forum, without applying its mind had disposed of all the complaints by way of common order, which is not permissible under the law. There is no infirmity or illegality in impugned order passed by the State Commission.
9 District Forum vide order dated 18.12.2008 has dismissed the complaints of the complainants.
10. Complainants being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, filed appeals before the State Commission and the same were allowed by it vide the impugned order. State Commission, remanded the complaints back to the District Forum with certain directions and operative part of its order states ;
For the reasons recorded above, all the appeals are accepted. The order dated 18.12. 2008, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. The complainants are remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction, that each complaint be decided separately, within six months, w.e.f. 12.5.2011, in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence produced therein, and keeping in view the reliefs sought in the same, by recorded firm findings on every issue, involved in each complaint, though the points almost raised, in all the complaints, are broadly mentioned in para 19 of the judgment.
11. It is manifestly clear from the impugned order that some of the reliefs claimed by the complainants are common. Whereas some reliefs claimed by each of the complainant, are different. In order to decide the controversy effectively between the parties, State Commission rightly remanded back all the matters to the District Forum. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to either of the parties if these matters are remanded back.
12. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
13. Present revision petitions, under these circumstances are not maintainable and the same stand dismissed.
14. No order as to cost.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) ( PRESIDING MEMBER SSB