NIRANJANBHAI CHOKSI vs KANAKNIDHI CORPORATION

PRESIDENTBY way of this complaint the complainant has prayed for following reliefs : (a) Direct the opponents to remove the defects in construction incurring minimum expenses of Rs. 2,40,500/-, of premises by taking all necessary steps in accordance with relevant building laws, rules, and the notifications issued by the concerned authorities, and (b) Direct the opponents to pay the Impact Fees of Rs. 15,88,955/-, Municipal Taxes of Rs. 1,21,893/-, Cess, Levies and Fees as are payable in accordance with the agreement and confirmation made by the opponents so as to regularize the occupation of the premises purchased by the complainant. (c) Direct the opponents to pay a total amount of Rs. 19,51,348/- towards above claims.

OPPONENT has resisted this complaint inter alia on the ground that this complaint is not maintainable at law as the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer, that this Commission will not have jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint as highly complicated questions of facts and law arise and detailed and elaborate evidence is required, that the transaction alleged in the complaint is for commercial purpose, that R.C.S. No. 267/2002 has been filed against the Surat Municipal Corporation and it is sought to be directed to collect impact fees and regularize the construction, that no permission has been sought from the Civil Court to file any other suit to recover impact fees and that the present complaint is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. When this complaint came up for hearing in the first session the complainants learned Advocate wanted to give an application for withdrawal of this complaint with liberty to take up his cause which has been presented in the pending complaint, by way of appropriate proceeding. At that stage the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent objected for any such permission being granted. The matter was kept for passing of the order. However, when this matter is again called out we are surprised to notice that neither of the learned Advocates is present before this Commission and that neither the complainant has given application as was submitted nor has the opponent given objection as was submitted.

In the aforesaid background if the broad nature of this complaint is taken into consideration it would clearly appear that the main dispute relates to liability with regard to payment of impact fees. There is a substantive suit pending in respect of this main relief which has been prayed for in this complaint and that was precisely the reason why the complainant might be desirous of withdrawing this complaint with liberty to present the cause in an appropriate proceeding. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. If that is so there would not be any reason why the complainant should not be permitted to have recourse to any other law or remedy since a substantive suit is pending and since elaborate evidence is required with regard to the questions involved in this complaint. We, therefore, pass following order : This complaint is dismissed relegating the complainant to his remedy before an appropriate Court. There shall be no order as to cost. Complaint dismissed.