Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing 1. Pawandeep Singh Bawa, vs 1. M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 2 January, 2015

Parixit Pai Fondekar vs Gera Development Private Ltd. on 17 March, 2017

16. Complainant further placed reliance on Pawandeep Singh Bawa V. Emaar MGF Ltd (2015) 1 CPR 50, it was held that OP failed to produce on record any evidence that Complainant were property dealers or they intended to purchase the unit for commercial shop/space by way of investment with a view to sell the same/rent out the same - They very much fell within definition of consumers as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii).
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asit Baran Chandra vs Chinta Haran Jana on 6 July, 2017

The materials on record do not deny the relationship between the contesting parties herein and it is admitted that the respondent no. 1 was a tenant under the appellant and others in respect to the demised premises at one point of time and there were civil and criminal litigations in between the parties and ultimately it was agreed upon between them that the parties will come to peaceful solution on withdrawal of each of the litigations pending between themselves in the court of law and as a solution the present respondent no. 1 was allowed to purchase a shop room measuring 170 sq. ft. in the ground floor of the building, referred to in the schedule of the petition of complaint. The money receipt showing payment a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the original OPs of HDF 328 of 2013 who undertook to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 on payment of balance consideration. The parties also agreed to execute the said deed on withdrawal of all civil and criminal cases, pending between themselves. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in course of argument submitted with reference to the averments of the petition of complaint that the complainant herein wanted to purchase a shop room which is for commercial and his claim cannot be a subject matter, to be decided by a consumer court. He also submitted that Ld. Trial Forum was not justified in passing a decree in favour of the complainant since the complainant cannot be designated as "consumer" as defined in section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To counter his argument, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 drew our attention to the State Commission of Chandigarh, in Pawandeep Singh Bawa & Another - vs - Emaar MGF Land Limited & Another reported in 1 (2015) CPJ 128 (UT Chd.) and submitted that the complainant being the purchaser of a shop room for his livelihood he is termed as consumer and his interest can be protected by the consumer forum/commission taking the recourse of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also submitted that the complainant/i.e. the respondent no. 1 had continuous cause of action since his repeated requests did not yield any fruitful result and the repetition of such requests can be termed as continuous of action. Frankly speaking, the documents which is at page 68 of the file clearly revealed that the appellant herein and others took a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only from the respondent no. 1 as advance and they undertook to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the shop room as per schedule of the petition of complaint. The appellant and other respondents being the OPs of the CC 328 of 2013 undertook to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 but in their written version they pleaded that such agreement was the outcome of a threat but no such document or evidence from the appellant and others were produced either before the Trial Court or before this Commission for establishing its veracity and in the absence of such documents it can safely be held that such a ground was taken just to deny the deserving party from getting his relief in terms of agreement between them. Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment held that the complainant of the CC 328 of 2013 deserved reliefs in terms of the application but on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case we are unable to take a different view, rather we are of the view that Ld. Trial Forum did not commit any mistake in passing the decree in favour of the respondent no. 1 herein. It is interesting to note that the party agreed between themselves that all the civil and criminal cases pending before such courts shall be withdrawn for fruitful solution of the problems for which this litigation saw the light of the day and we hope that the parties of this proceeding shall keep their words which they expressed at one point of time in the form of the agreement (which is at page 57 of the agreement). As such we firmly conclude that Ld. Trial Forum did not commit any mistake in passing a decree in favour of the complainant and accordingly we uphold the same with a modification that the entire process of withdrawal of cases from different courts, execution of the deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of the order. The other part of the direction remains unchanged. We hereby affirm the judgment and order of the Ld. Trial Court with the modification as indicated above. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal.       [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS] PRESIDENT   [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1