AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THE appellant Society has filed this appeal against the order dated 9. 3. 2004 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (the State Commission) in complaint case No. 28 of 2003. Vide the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the complaint with cost of Rs. 3,000 payable to opposite party No. 1.
THE consumer dispute raised by the Society before the State Commission related to the deficiencies in service in regard to a construction contract, which the appellant Society had awarded to Shri Surinder Singh Saini, Proprietor of Surindra Builders and Engineers of Chandigarh (OP No. 1 ). One Mr. Vinod Joshi, who was alleged to be the Architect of A. N. Architect Group was arrayed as OP No. 2 and Mr. H. L. Bhatti, ex-President and Mr. T. N. Thukral, ex-Secretary of the complainant-Society were arrayed as OP Nos. 3 and 4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant-Society, after the complaint had somewhat progressed, the appellant-Society made a prayer to the State Commission for deletion of the names of Mr. H. L. Bhatti, ex-president and Mr. T. N. Thukral, ex-Secretary of the Society from the array of the parties and the said prayer was granted by the State Commission on 25. 8. 2003. As a consequence thereof only the contractor Mr. Surinder Singh Saini and the architect namely Mr. Vinod Joshi remained on record as OP Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. We have perused the impugned order, which, however, records altogether different factual position. In the third paragraph appearing on page 2 of the impugned order it is stated that "the complainant Society, however, got Shri Vinod Joshi (OP No. 2) of A. N. Architect Group deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 25. 8. 2003 and consequently Shri H. L. Bhatti, ex-President and Shri T. N. Thukral, ex-Secretary of the complainant-Society were re-numbered as OP Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. " From the title of the parties appearing in the impugned order also it is apparent that the State Commission throughout treated that Shri Vinod Joshi was no longer a party and Shri H. L. Bhatti and Shri T. N. Thukral continued to be OPs in the complaint. The discussion and findings recorded by the State Commission would also lend support to this position because towards the end of the impugned order, it was observed by the State Commission, that the OP Nos. 2 and 3, being the President and Secretary of the Complainant-Society, discharged their duties and functions for the Society and that any dispute arising between the existing office bearers of the complainant-Society on one hand and the outgoing office bearers of the Complainant-Society on the other hand is not a subject matter, which can be termed to be a consumer dispute, which could be adjudicated upon under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
From the above, it is manifest that there was a great deal of confusion which persisted throughout the proceedings before the State Commission in regard to the opposite parties in the complaint against whom the complainant-Society was interested in prosecuting the complaint. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, no prayer ever was made on behalf of the appellant-Society to delete the names of Shri Vinod Joshi, A. N. Architect Group from the array of OPs because in para 17 of the complaint they have made certain allegations against this opposite party as well, in regard to deficiency in service on his part and, therefore, they could not possibly have deleted the said architect from the array of the parties. We are prepared to believe the appellant in that behalf because the deletion of the ex-office bearers of the Society from the array of the opposite parties is understandable but not that of the architect, against whom allegations of deficiency in service were made. We are of the view that the confusion as noticed above might have been entertained by the State Commission in this behalf has led to miscarriage of justice, which is required to be undone and position is straightened.
IN view of the foregoing we do not wish to go into the merits of this appeal. However, on account of the above noted reasons, we would allow this appeal and remit the merit the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of the complaint afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the State Commission would be free to ascertain as to what was the correct legal and factual position in regard to deletion of the opposition parties and similarly, the parties would be free to make their respective submissions in that behalf. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26. 8. 2008. Appeal allowed.