GULSHAN BAJWA vs LOKPRIYA SEHKARI AVAS SAMITY LTD.

BY this order, we will be disposing of two applications, filed by the applicant, dated 4.4.2002 and 8.10.2002 for modification and execution of order dated 21.6.1995, respectively.

THE relevant facts, in brief are, that the applicant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi being Complaint Case No. 2033/1993-entitled Shri Gulshan Singh Bajwa v. M/s. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. & Ors., for the redressal of his grievances relating to the purchase of a plot bearing No. C-55, measuring 272 sq. yds., from the respondent M/s. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. THE said complaint was dismissed vide order of the learned District Forum dated 25.4.1994 on the ground that since the applicant had not complied with the terms of the agreement executed by him with the respondent Samity and had refused to pay the development charges, the termination of his membership by the Society did not amount to any deficiency in service and as such the applicant was not entitled to the reliefs as claimed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant filed an appeal before this Commission being Appeal No. A-180/1994-entitled Shri Gulshan Singh Bajwa v. M/s. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. The said appeal was disposed of vide Consent Order dated 21.7.1995 (photo copy of the said consent order is enclosed as Annexure A). The application dated 4.4.2002 has been filed for modification of the consent order dated 21.7.1995 and application dated 8.10.2002 for execution of the said order.

As is apparent from the record and the statement on oath made by the applicant before this Commission on 21.7.1995, the appellant and the respondent Society had arrived at a compromise and on the basis of the statement made by the appellant as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar, Secretary of the respondent Society and Mr. Vijay Tandon, Advocate, a consent order dated 21.7.1995 was passed on the basis of terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. In his application dated 4.4.2002 it has been alleged by the applicant that the said consent order dated 21.7.1995 passed by this Commission was obtained by the respondent Society fraudulently as the statement of accounts which was prepared by the respondent Society was inaccurate, incomplete and misleading which led the applicant to make a statement before this Commission on 21.7.1995 on the basis of which the consent order was passed. It is further alleged by the applicant that the true position of the accounts has been reproduced by him in para 1 of the application and according to the same, the applicant was liable to pay only Rs. 11,000/- to the respondent Society which amount has been duly paid by him by Cheque No. 308617 dated 30.3.1996, drawn on Syndicate Bank. The letter along with the enclosed cheque was received back undelivered and, therefore, the same was sent again vide Regd. A/D No. 2610 dated 23.4.1996 on the same address and the second time the AD Card was received back duly signed and stamped. The applicant had also visited the site of Lok Priya Vihar on 26.3.2002 along with his wife and found that the sign board along with boundary fencing of the registered office of the Society had been removed and the site was found to be abandoned and without doors and windows. It is further alleged by the applicant that the Society has been deliberately changing its address from time to time and apparently the development charges paid by the applicant has been fraudulently misappropriated by the Secretary of the Society. Accordingly, it is prayed that in addition to Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, the self-styled Secretary and President of the Society respectively, the officials/persons mentioned in para 4-C be also impleaded as parties to the proceedings and the consent order dated 21.7.1995 be modified and the respondent Society be directed to treat the amount paid by the applicant vide Cheque No. 308617 dated 30.3.1996 as full and final payment for the Plot No. B-3/7 measuring 246.13 sq. yds. in Lokpriya Vihar, Dadri Road, Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P.). It has further been prayed vide said application that the respondent Society be directed to facilitate the registration of the plot allotted to the applicant. Insofar as the request for modification of the order dated 21.7.1995 is concerned, it is settled law that this Commission has no powers to review its own orders under the Act. Furthermore, in execution proceedings, this Commission cannot go behind the order and modify the same. Even otherwise, the consent order dated 21.7.1995 passed by this Commission is based on the statement made by the applicant on oath. The allegations of fraud against the respondent Society after a lapse of about 8 years appear to have been made as an after-thought without disclosing the exact nature of the fraud committed by the respondent Society. Accordingly the prayer of the applicant for treating the amount paid by the applicant i.e. Rs. 11,000/- on the basis of statement of accounts now produced by the applicant cannot be acceded to and as such the prayer of the applicant in Para (b) of the application dated 4.4.2002 being not maintainable in law is liable to be rejected.

INSOFAR as the other prayer of the applicant for initiating proceedings under Section 27 of the Act against the respondent Society is concerned, it is pertinent to note that in terms of the consent order dated 21.7.1995, certain obligations had to be fulfilled by the applicant before the respondent Society could grant relief to the applicant. It was undertaken in express terms by the applicant vide his own statement on oath that he would pay Rs. 18,041/- to the respondent No. 1 Society on account of additional developmental charges and interest accrued thereon, in respect of the plot allotted to the applicant by the respondent No. 1 Society. As per the own admission in para 2 of the instant application, he has paid only Rs. 11,000/- and desires the amount to be treated as full and final settlement in respect of the obligation undertaken by him under the consent order dated 21.7.1995 wherein he had undertaken to pay Rs.18,041/- together with interest. As such since the applicant as per his own admission has failed to fulfil his obligation in terms of the impugned consent order there is no occasion for initiating proceedings under Section 27 of the Act against the respondent No. 1 Society or directing it to facilitate the registration of the plot in his favour. In the other application dated 8.10.2002, the applicant has prayed for directions to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to re-open the criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 1 Society initiated by the applicant by lodging a complaint with the Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi vide Diary No. 428/PA/DCP/ND dated 11.4.1992 under Section 420, I.P.C. against the respondent No. 1 Society and which had been agreed to be dropped by the applicant in pursuance of the consent order dated 21.7.1995. It has also been prayed by the applicant that warrant of arrest be issued against respondent No. 1 Society and Mr. D. Kumar. Insofar as the said application is concerned, the relief sought for by the applicant for directions to the Commissioner of Police to re-open the criminal proceedings are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Commission under the Act. As regards the prayer for issuance of arrest warrant against the respondent No. 1 Society and Mr. D. Kumar are concerned, the same are not required in the circumstances of the case and in view of the position explained in detail above, proceedings under Section 27 of the Act cannot be initiated against the respondent No. 1 Society for non-compliance of order dated 21.7.1995 as the applicant has himself failed to fulfil his part of the obligations. Accordingly, the said application of the applicant being also devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

IN the end result, both the applications dated 4.4.2002 and 8.10.2002 filed by the applicant being not maintainable in law are dismissed. IN the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Applications dismissed.