State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parkwood Developers vs Amrit Kaur on 17 January, 2013
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal Case No. : 401 of 2012 Date of Institution : 06.12.2012 Date of Decision : 17.01.2013 1. M/s Parkwood Developers Private Ltd.,10th Floor, Hemkunt chambers, 89, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110019 through S.Manminder Singh, Senior Manager its Authorized signatory. 2. M/s Parkwood Developers Private Ltd., Parkwood Glade Pocket-C, Sante Majra, Kharar, Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab through S.Manminder Singh its Senior Manager. ----Appellants VERSUS 1. Amrit Kaur W/o S.Rajinder Singh Baghi, resident of 249, Old Housing Board Colony, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal. 2. Hamentjit Singh S/o S.Rajinder Singh Baghi, resident of 249, Old Housing Board Colony, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal. ...Respondents. Appeal U/s 27-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 CORAM: Justice Sham Sunder(Retd), President Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member
For the appellants :
Sh. I.P.Singh, Advocate For the respondents: None (ex parte) PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the Criminal Petition No.125 of 2012, and directed that the Opposite Parties/Judgment Debtors be summoned through warrants of arrest for passing an order, on the quantum of sentence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants(now respondents )filed Consumer Complaint No.7 of 2012 for the refund of amount of Rs.10.00 lacs deposited, in respect of a flat alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. On 29.2.2012, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, made a statement that the Opposite Parties were ready to refund the amount of Rs.10.00 lacs, minus any amount, if already paid, against receipt, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment, within a period of 30 days, from that date, failing which, the amount shall be paid alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. That statement was admitted to be correct by the Counsel for the Complainants, and, thus, the complaint was disposed of, vide order dated 29.2.2012, in terms of the statements, referred to above.
3. Since order dated 29.2.2012 was not complied with, Criminal Petition No.125 of 2012/Execution application was filed by the Decree Holders/Complainants under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, for punishing the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties.
4. Show cause notice under Section 27 of the Act, was issued to the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties. They put in appearance, and filed reply to the effect that they had duly complied with the order dated 29.2.2012. It was also stated by them, in the reply, that the complainants/Decree Holders had filed the Criminal Petition, with malafide intention.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the District Forum, passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the Appellants/Judgments Debtors/Opposite Parties.
7. Notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued to the respondents/complainants, through registered A.D. covers, prepaid, and at the correct address, on 7.12.2012, for 16.1.2013. Registered A.D. covers were not received back, with any report, though a period of more than 30 days, had lapsed, from the date of issuance of the same. Accordingly, the respondents were deemed to have been duly served, but neither they, nor any authorized representative, on their behalf, entered appearance, so they were proceeded against ex parte.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that an application dated 26.11.2011, was filed by the complainants/decree-holders, alongwith which, duly sworn affidavit of Amrit Kaur, one of the complainants, was attached, for withdrawal of the petition under Section-27 of the Act, before the District Forum, but, in the meanwhile, the appellants filed the instant appeal, and the District Forum file was requisitioned therein. He further submitted that, as per the application dated 26.11.2011, and the affidavit of Amrit Kaur, one of the decree holders/complainants, the order dated 29.2.2012, has been fully complied with, by the appellants/judgments debtors and all the disputes have been settled between them. Even, at the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellants, submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2012 was arrived at, between the appellants, and decree holders/complainants, showing that the dispute between the parties had been settled. He further submitted that since already the order dated 29.2.2012, passed in the Consumer Complaint, has already been complied with, and the dispute has been settled, between the parties, the order impugned is liable to set aside.
10. No doubt, by the time, the order dated 6.11.2012, which is impugned, in this appeal, was passed, the settlement had not been arrived at between the parties. However, as is evident from the Miscellaneous Application No.208 of 2012 dated 26.11.12, filed by the complainants/respondents, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Amrit Kaur, one of the complainants/respondents, the opposite parties/judgments debtors have already complied with the order/directions. It is further evident from para Nos.4 & 5 of this application, duly signed by both the complainants, that the Opposite Parties have paid all the amounts, in terms of the order dated 29.2.2012. It is further evident from Para No.4 of this application, that the parties have entered into a compromise, in full and final settlement of the claim, of the complainants. The complainants further stated, in this application, that the petition under Section 27 of the Act had, thus, become infructuous. This application, as stated above, is duly supported by an affidavit dated 26.11.2012, of Amrit Kaur, one of the complainants. Even the Memorandum of Understanding annexure AX was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, at the time of arguments in the appeal. Para Nos.4 & 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding read as under
;
4.That the parties have by this MOU have entered into a full and final settlement with respect to the claims of the first party and the disputes arising therefrom under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act has therefore become infructuous. The first party do not, therefre, want to pursuethe petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and shall therefore move an application making a prayer to the Honble Court to be permitted to withdraw the present petition in view of the ocmplaince of the second party in full and final settlement arrived at with the first party.
5.
That the parties have settled their dispute and the entire amount of settlement has been paid by way of Demand Drafts to the utne of Rs.19.00 Lac as per details given hereunder :-
a.
Demand draft NO.902190 dated Rs.4,50,000/-
22.11.2012 issued by Punjab National Bank Minto Road, New Delhi favouring Amrit Kaur b.
Demand draft NO.902191 dated Rs.5,00,000/-
22.11.2012 issued by Punjab National Bank Minto Road, New Delhi favouring Amrit Kaur c.Demand draft NO.902192 dated Rs.5,00,000/-
2.11.2012 issued by Punjab National Bank Minto Road, New Delhi favouring Hamentjeet Singh d. Demand draft NO.902193 dated Rs.4,50,000/-
22.11.2012 issued by Punjab National Bank Minto Road, New Delhi favouring Hamentjeet Singh
11. This Memorandum of Understanding, was duly signed by both the complainants, namely Amrit Kaur and Hamentjeet Singh, and also by an authorized signatory of the Opposite Parties, and two witnesses. It was duly attested by a Notary. In para No.6 of this Memorandum of Understanding , it was stated that, in terms of the settlement, the first party (complainants) shall move an appropriate application, before the District Forum, for withdrawal of the Criminal Petition No.125 of 2012 and also subsequent proceedings, regarding the issuance of warrants of arrest, and quantum of punishment. It is further evident from para NO.4 of the Memorandum of Understanding, that the complainants assured that they would withdraw all the proceedings, pertaining to the dispute, and recall of the order dated 6.11.2012. From the application, referred to above, duly supported by an affidavit, as also the Memorandum of Understanding AX, arrived at between the parties, it is, thus, established that the dispute has already been settled, between the parties, and, in terms of the order dated 29.2.2012, payment has already been made.
12. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, in the absence of complainants/decree holders, the documents relied upon, in the foregoing paragraphs, could be taken into consideration. It may be stated here, that though due notice of the appeal through registered A.D. Covers, was issued to the respondents, yet even after the expiry of a period of 30 days, from the date of issuance of the same, neither the said registered AD covers had been received back, with any report, nor they(complainants/decree holders) put in appearance, though they were deemed to have been duly served. If after the arrival of settlement between the parties, by way of Memorandum of Understanding, and on the basis of application, referred to above, duly supported by an affidavit, to the effect, that the dispute between the parties had been settled, and the amount in pursuance of the order dated 29.2.2012, had already been paid, the decree holders/complainants did not appear, then this Commission is not powerless, to pass any appropriate order, taking into consideration the said documents. It appears that the respondents/decree holders, after entering into Memorandum of Understanding, and moving the application, referred to above, duly supported by an affidavit, might have changed their mind, for the reasons, best known to them. However, the documents, referred to above, which appear to be authentic, cannot be ignored. It is, therefore, held that, on the basis of the aforesaid documents, it can very well be held that all the disputes between the parties have been settled, and, even in the absence of the respondents/decree holders, as they have failed to put in appearance, despite due service, before this Commission, for defending the appeal, an order, in accordance with law, can be passed.
13. The entire amount, as admitted by the decree holders/respondents, in the application, and the Memorandum of Understanding, referred to above, has been paid by the Opposite Parties/Appellants and the dispute has been settled, in full and final settlement of the claim. The object of the Act, is only to ensure the compliance of the orders, passed by the Consumer Foras. Its object is not to punish a person, who has complied with the order, though belatedly. Since, the entire amount, in pursuance of the order dated 29.2.2012 passed, in the Consumer Complaint, has already been paid and settlement has been arrived at, between the parties, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose, shall be served by punishing the appellants/Opposite Parties. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice would be adequately met, if the impugned order is set aside.
14. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 6.11.2012, is set aside. Non-bailable warrants, if already issued, be recalled back, unexecuted immediately.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced 17.01.2013 sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(Retd)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER *Js STATE COMMISSION Appeal case NO.401/2012 Argued by:
Sh.I.P.Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Respondents ex parte Dated the 17th day of January.,2013 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 6.11.2012 has been set aside.
(Neena Sandhu) [Justice Sham Sunder(Retd)] Member President