AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in these Revision Petitions bearing No. 927 to 939 & 951-52 of 2018 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the orders dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Pune (for short "the State Commission.") in RPs No. 17/86, 17/87,17/88, 17/89, 17/90, 17/91, 17/92, 17/93, 17/94, 17/95, 17/96, 17/97, 17/100, 17/98 and 17/99 respectively.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the Revision Petitioner after observing thus:-
"There cannot be any dispute that the amendment can be allowed even at appellate stage. The question is whether the amendment can be allowed or not? For that purpose we have to see what is the nature of amendment. After considering the amendment application it is clear that the opposite party wants to withdraw the admission given in the written version about the payment made by the complainant and the amount due. As per written version ₹2,51,660/- are due. By way of amendment the opposite party wants to contend that ₹6,51,660/- are due. Such amendment cannot be allowed. That will amount to allow the opposite party to withdraw the previous admission about amount paid and amount due. Thus we find that the amendment application cannot be allowed and the district forum has rightly rejected the amendment application. Thus we find that the order under revision cannot be said to be incorrect illegal or improper this. Hence we answer point number one accordingly."
Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently argued that both the Fora below have erred in dismissing their Applications to amend their Written Versions filed in different Consumer Complaints on the ground that the Amendment Applications were filed after a period of 3 years and also that the proposed Amendment was not required for adjudicating the cases. She submitted that the District Forum has observed that the Consent Letter was executed one or two days prior to the execution of the Possession Letter but it is nowhere mentioned in the Possession Letter regarding the Consent Letter or its terms and that the correctness or otherwise of the proposed Amendments can be dealt with at the time of final hearing. She submitted that it was only a clerical error that the amounts mentioned in the Written Statement were different from the amounts mentioned in the Consent Letter and, therefore, the amounts mentioned in the Consent Letter needed to be incorporated in the Written Statement which is sought to be amended. Ld. Counsel also contended that in two cases i.e. RP No. 932/2018 and 951/2018 the amounts mentioned in the Written Statement and also the amounts sought to be amended in the Written Statement were the same.
This Bench vide Order dated 28.08.2018 had directed the Counsel for the Petitioner to file the offer of possession of flat given to each of the flat purchasers and also the date of the alleged Consent Letter and the stage of the proceedings before the District Forum when the Amendment Application was filed. In compliance of the said Order, Ld. Counsel has given a table of the relevant amounts and the dates which is detailed as hereunder:-
Sl. No.
R.P. No.
Amount mentioned in the Written Statement
Amount Sought to be amended vide the Amendment Applications
Date of Agreement to Sale
Date of Consent Letter
Possession Given on
1.
RP/927/18
2,51,660/-
6,51,660/-
20/3/10
31/1/11
1/4/11
2.
RP/928/18
1,00,900/-
10,65,069/-
31/8/09
18/4/11
19/4/12
3.
RP/929/18
15,57,400/-
14,97,400/-
8/6/10
12/10/11
14/10/11
4.
RP/930/18
6,01,350/-
6,08,648
19/3/10
26/3/11
26/6/11
5.
RP/931/18
3,77,706/-
3,65,660/-
23/3/10
14/8/11
16/6/11
6.
RP/932/18
7,13,050/-
7,13,050/-
9/12/09
16/3/11
2/4/11
7.
RP/933/18
3,33,265/-
8,33,265/-
23/3/10
16/8/11
19/8/11
8.
RP/934/18
3,30,171/-
5,28,650/-
20/3/10
29/3/11
1/4/11
9.
RP/935/18
3,78,005/-
7,64,085/-
20/3/10
30/1/11
1/4/11
10.
RP/936/2018
3,64,782/-
8,47,150/-
30/3/10
16/8/11
18/8/11
11.
RP/937/2018
16,93,330/-
22,93,330/-
23/6/10
18/9/11
2011
12.
RP/938/2018
7,03,069/-
11,80,069/-
31/8/09
18/4/12
19/4/12
13.
RP/939/2018
2,01,161/-
6,74,165/-
31/12/10
8/3/11
9/3/11
14.
RP/951/2018
14,98,652/-
14,98,652/-
1/11/10
7/11/11
2011
15.
RP/952/2018
4,57,580/-
9,30,196/-
19/3/10
15/6/11
16/6/11
While we agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that an Amendment can be allowed at any stage, the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgements is that Amendment can be considered only if there are substantial grounds and if it does not change the colour and character of the case. If we take RP bearing No. 927 of 2018 as the lead case, the amount mentioned in the Written Version is ₹2,51,660/- and the amount sought to be amended vide the Amendment Application is ₹6,51,660/-. This changes the colour and character of the case as the amounts due are much more than what was stated in the Written version and further it is observed from the record that the Agreement to Sale was a Registered Agreement.
The argument of the Counsel that it was a typographical error is totally unsustainable in the light of the amounts mentioned in the afore-noted table which evidences that there is a huge discrepancy in all the cases, specially when the dates of the Registered Agreement to Sale are different, dates of the possession given are different and so are the dates of the disputed Consent Letters. On notice, the Respondents were represented by an advocate Mr. Nilesh A. Thokade who vehemently argued and submitted on instructions that these Consent Letters were never entered into by any of the flat purchasers and opposed the allowing of any such Amendment sought to be made in the Amendment Applications.
At the cost of Repetition, we reiterate that there is lot of discrepancy in the amounts sought to be amended and when the Agreements to Sale are registered documents, it is highly improbable that the amounts written in every Written Version would be different. The District Forum, while dismissing the Application seeking to amend the Written Version has observed that the Complaints were filed in the year 2012, the Petitioners herein have filed their Written Statements in the year 2013 and when the matters were posted for final arguments after the evidences of both the parties were filed, the Petitioner herein, had filed the Amendment Application referring to the Consent Letters. Though we do not wish to comment on the authenticity or otherwise of the Consent Letter which was observed by both the Fora below, as no mention of these letters were made in the Possession Letters, we dismiss these Revision Petitions as devoid of any merit, but we accord an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit their contentions regarding the Consent Letters during the time of final arguments. All these Revision Petitions are dismissed with the afore-noted observations.