National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Taneja Developers & ... vs Deepak Kumar on 11 September, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 902 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 11/04/2017 in Complaint No. 77/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/6386/2017(Stay),IA/6387/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTTAIVE, 10, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O. SH. NAKIL RAM, R/O. 210/1, SECTOR-44-A, CHANDIGARH-47, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Sep 2017 ORDER
Appeared at the time of hearing
For the Appellant
:
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER 2017
ORDER
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned interim order dated 11.04.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/77/2015, filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant.
2. The basic issue in question relates to the non-delivery of possession of plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards within time by the appellant/OP Builder to the complainant which was allotted in his favour at Mohali, Punjab vide allotment letter dated 28.05.2008 in Sector 118, TDI City. The appellant/OP Builder had earlier filed first appeal No. 509/2016 before this Commission, challenging an interim order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the State Commission, vide which the said Commission had asked them to produce record, giving details of persons who were allotted plots in sector 118 and the dates on which such persons had given applications for allotment of plots. The said appeal No. 509/2016 was ordered to be dismissed vide order of this Commission passed on 03.06.2016 and the interim order of the State Commission dated 26.02.2016 was upheld. The State Commission have now passed another interim order dated 11.04.2017, which reads as follows:-
"Before lunch the matter was taken up. Learned counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that he will produce the original record after the lunch. Now it is 2:30 P.M. No one has turned up. In view of this, for procuring the presence of the Director/Chairman as well as the original records, let Bailable Warrants be issued against Sh. Ravinder Kumar Taneja, active Director of OPs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount for 04.05.2017.
At this stage, Sh. S.K. Monga, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties, has appeared. He has not produced the original record as per the order. However, he has given a typed list. The same is taken on record. It appears that the opposite parties are intentionally avoiding the production of record and also not complying with the order passed by this Commission on 26.02.2016. More than one year has lapsed. For such a chronic defaulter, there is no option except to issue Bailable Warrants.
At the stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties states that they are ready to offer flat in the same project. It appears that this offer is in view of the above order. However, counsel for the complainant states that this offer is only acceptable if it is given in the same Sector."
4. A perusal of the above order indicates that despite orders of the State Commission duly confirmed by this Commission, the appellant/OP have not produced the original record of allotment before the State Commission. It appears that they are intentionally avoiding producing the said record before the State Commission. By means of interim order dated 11.04.2017, the State Commission ordered the issue of bailable warrants against R.K. Taneja, active Director of the OPs, following which the counsel for the appellant/OPs stated before the State Commission that they were ready to offer flat in the same project.
5. During hearing of the first appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that they were prepared to produce record before the State Commission, but the appearance of their Managing Director or Director before the Commission be exempted. However, we do not find any justification to accept the contention of the appellant, considering their conduct during proceedings before the State Commission. It appears that the appellants are making every possible effort to resist the production of record and they had even filed appeal No. 509/2016 before this Commission against the interim order dated 26.02.2016 of the Commission. Vide impugned order dated 11.04.2017 the State Commission has ordered the issue of bailable warrants only against R.K. Taneja active Director of the Company. We feel that no prejudice or adverse inference is caused to the appellant or their Director by virtue of the said order. There is absolutely no justification for allowing this appeal at this juncture and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limini. The order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the State Commission is upheld.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER