AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Palm Groves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. against the order dated 10.10.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.RBT/A/16/627.
The petitioner is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, comprising of several flat-purchasers in the housing project called 'Palm Groves', which was developed and constructed by the Respondent No.I, who are the promoters and builders of the said project. The respondent No.II are collectively the owners of the property upon which the said Palm Groves project was developed and constructed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint No.35 of 2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (in short 'the District Forum') against the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 and opposite party II/respondent No.II. This complaint was filed alleging certain defects in the flats developed by the builder and handed over to the members of the complainant Society. The District Forum vide its order dated 16.03.2007 allowed the complaint by passing the following order:-
"The complaint is partly allowed.
The opposite party No.1 is directed to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant Society, in terms of agreement dt. 28/6/1999. In executing the Conveyance Deed, the Opposite party No.I should take into consideration the observations of the Forum made in the body of the judgment regarding common facilities and amenities. The Opposite Party No.I is also directed to hand over relevant papers regarding formation of society and lift plans, drainage, plumbing etc.
The Opposite Party No.I is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant Society.
The Opposite Party No.96 to 102, contributing in equal proportion, are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant Society.
It is declared that all the unit holders Apartment, Duplex Houses and Bungalows owners have equal right of enjoyment in the common facilities & amenities, as indicated above. But it is made clear that these facilities & amenities can be used only on payment of fees or regular subscriptions as may be fixed by the Complainant Society. The management of the facilities & amenities shall remain with the complainant society and the said society has an authority to levy and recover such fees or periodical subscriptions.
Each of the Opposite Party is directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant Society.
The directions given above shall be implemented within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
All the interim application stand rejected. Similarly, rest of the claims stand rejected."
Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred appeal bearing No.A/07/421 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 16.04.2007, admitted the above appeal only with regard to quantum of compensation and cost. It further directed the petitioner Society to place on record proof of expenses incurred by it to remove the deficiencies. Accordingly the proof was filed by the complainant, however State Commission vide its order dated 02.04.2014 allowed appeal by setting aside compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum. Then the complainant/petitioner preferred the revision petition No.3121 of 2014. This Commission vide order dated 05.05.2016 set aside the order dated 02.04.2014 and remanded the matter to the State Commission with following direction:-
"It is submitted that additional documents regarding proof of expenses incurred were placed before the State Commission but the State Commission has failed to consider that evidence. It is further submitted that even a reply was filed by OP No.1. As the State Commission after calling for additional documents has failed to consider it, the impugned order qua OP No.1 cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the appeal after considering the additional documents and response, if any by OP No.1. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 10.06.2016."
The State Commission again considered the appeal of the Respondent No.I/opposite party No. I and passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 as under:-
"According to the Society there was quotation from S.S. Bhati, Contractor and supplier for sum of Rs.13,86,000/- which is nothing but estimate of expenses (page-377-378), Electrician quoted sum of Rs.32,950/- (page-379), Tax invoice dated 10/08/2006 for sum of Rs.78,665/-. We do not find the exact evidence led as to actual payments made by the Society to cure the deficiencies in services to the flat purchasers. In our view, therefore, we must restore the original order passed by the Learned Forum below as to Compensation ordered in the sum of Rs.Five Lakhs which was considered as apt in the facts and circumstances of the case by the Learned Forum below with liberty for the Learned Forum below to fix the additional costs and compensation if any, after notice to the all interested parties and include the sum of compensation accordingly in the final order as payable to the Society from the OP so as to cure all the deficiencies in the matter of essential services and facilities to be made available for the flat purchasers in the buildings of the Society. Parties shall approach the Learned Forum below on 31st October 2017 at 10.30 a.m. We direct Learned District forum below to receive the evidence as to actual expenses incurred by the Society so as to compensate the same adequately (based on actual expenses incurred) to the society from the OPs. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties."
Aggrieved by the above order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this Commission had remanded the matter to the State Commission for deciding the quantum of the compensation after considering the documents and proof of payment filed by the petitioner, which were not considered earlier by the State Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the State Commission has only considered three or four documents as listed in its order and has treated them only estimates, but has not considered the other evidence/proof of payments, which were actually made and the same were filed as the proof of actual expenditure. It was requested that as the order of this Commission has not been fully complied with by the State Commission, the order of the State Commission be set aside and the matter either be remanded to the State Commission or matter be decided by this Commission.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. In this revision petition, the main question is regarding compensation. The District Forum had awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and the complainant did not prefer any appeal against that order dated 16.03.2007 of the District Forum. Hence the order of the District Forum dated 16.03.2007 has become final qua the complainant. The State Commission in the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 has restored and upheld the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to be given to the complainant and has additionally referred the matter to the District Forum for deciding any additional compensation based on actual bills of payments to be paid to the complainant.
As the original order of the District Forum has been maintained by the order dated 10.10.2017 of the State Commission and moreover the matter will now be dealt by the District Forum to see whether any additional compensation becomes payable to the complainant on the basis of the documents filed by the complainant, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for remanding the matter to the State Commission or to get it decided by this Commission, as there seems to be no reason for any grievance on the part of the complainant/petitioner. In a way it will be better and more procedural that the question of additional compensation should be decided by the District Forum as the documents being relied by the petitioner society were filed with the State Commission and the other petitioner did not get any opportunity to challenge the same. Thus, the State Commission has rightly remanded the matter for deciding any additional compensation and cost to the trial forum i.e. the District Forum. From this angle also, I do not find any error in the order of the State Commission.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.10.2017 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage.