AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the interim impugned order dated 09.07.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/186/2011, vide which, the said complaint was admitted for hearing to the extent of certain limited prayers only.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the consumer complaint before the State Commission, alleging that the Opposite Party (OPs) Developer/Builder had committed deficiency in service towards him by not providing the flat in question as per the conditions of allotment. The complainant demanded, interalia, payment of interest on the amount deposited by him, the refund of the amount collected towards open car-parking space, refund of the amount for less area given by the OPs and also sought directions to the OPs for obtaining occupation certificate and to form and register a society of flat purchasers etc. Vide impugned interim order, the complaint was admitted for hearing to the extent of some of the prayers as listed in clause (i), (j) and (k) only, relating to the occupation certificate and registration of society etc.
Before filing the complaint in question, the complainant had filed consumer complaint No. 27/2005 against the OPs before the State Commission on 12.03.2005. The said complaint was, however, returned by the State Commission to the complainant directing him to file the same before the District Forum, as the principal claim of the complainant was below 20 lakh. Accordingly, the complainant went to the District Forum with complaint No. 318/2005 on 26.07.2005, but the District Forum passed an order on 04.06.2011, saying that since the value of the claim was more than 20 lakh, the complainant should file it before the consumer forum of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complainant in question, CC/186/2011 was filed before the State Commission on 16.07.2011, asking for various reliefs listed in the prayer clause.
The Ld. Counsel for the parties were heard. The main point involved in the case is whether the impugned interim order passed by the State Commission on 09.07.2012, admitting the complaint to the extent of the limited prayer clause only, is in accordance with law or not. The said order reads as follows:- "Heard. Admit to the extent of prayer clause nos. (i), (j) and (k), prayers pertaining to the obtaining of occupancy certificate and registration of the Society. As far as other prayers are concerned, they relate to monetary claims or the one for which cause of action arose on the date of handing over possession i.e., 03.06.2006. Therefore, per se these claims cannot be entertained because they are monetary claims which are not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and at the second instance they are time barred. Opponent waived the notice after admission. Matter stands adjourned for filing of written version to 29.10.2012. "
The prayer clause in the complaint, indicates that the complainant demanded interest on the amount deposited by him with the builder and also sought refund for the amount deposited for
car-parking space etc. and also refund for less area allotted. In addition, the complainant sought directions to the OP for obtaining occupation certificate and formation of society etc. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the issues raised in the consumer complaint are quite material, as the violation of the terms and conditions of allotment on the part of the builder has been alleged and suitable compensation in the shape of interest on the deposited money and refund of certain part of his money has been demanded. The contention raised by the State Commission in the impugned order that monetary claims are not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not valid in the eyes of law looking at the definition of ''unfair trade practice'' as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, which is not exclusive, but includes various diverse situations listed in the said definition including the price at which goods or services are sold or provided. Similarly, the definition of the term ''deficient'' includes any shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The allegations raised in the consumer complaint saying that his money remained blocked for considerable time or that he was made to make payment for certain services which were not provided or inadequately provided are required to be gone into by the consumer fora in exercise of their jurisdiction under the Act. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the State Commission in the impugned order that the monetary claims are not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the State Commission has given finding in the impugned order that the said claim was time barred. The State Commission should have properly analysed the facts and circumstances on record and then given detailed reasons for arriving at the conclusion whether any claim or a part of it, was time-barred and even if it was so, whether there was any justification for condoning the delay or not.
Based on the above observation, the impugned interim order dated 09.07.2012 is set aside. The State Commission is directed to take cognisance of all the points listed in the complaint and then take appropriate decision on each point, after following the proper procedure as laid down in law after giving detailed reasons on each issue for coming to their conclusion. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 08.12.2016.