AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE revision petitions are arising out of one order of State Commission, hence, decided by a common order.
THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.9.2007 passed by State Commission in appeal No. 426 of 2007 - Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpn. Ltd. VS. Gurjeet Singh & Ors. and in appeal No. 605 of 2007 - Gurjeet Singh & Anr. VS. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. by which while dismissing appeal of opposite party, appeal of complainant was allowed and compensation was enhanced.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2 was allotted industrial plot No. F -389 at SAS Nagar vide allotment letter dated 7.6.2001 and possession was given vide letter dated 3.8.2002. He made payment of Rs. 1,74,840/ -. On site inspection, he found that there was no provision of electricity and development work in the area as in pitiable condition and basic amenities were also not provided. Complainant approached opposite party/petitioner who promised to provide basic amenities in the area. In the absence of amenities pertaining to electricity connection, complainant could not start industry in spite of construction of factory on the plot. It was, further, alleged that opposite party charged excess Rs. 13,000/ - and did not grant 10% rebate on making lumpsum payment and also charged extension money of Rs. 31,720/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party No. 1/Petitioner contested complaint and admitted allotment of plot and further submitted that vide letter dated 27.12.2001, complainant was intimated that process of development work was in progress and allotment would be made effective from the date of providing basic amenities in the area which was completed in middle of 2002 and allotment was made effective from 1.7.2002 and entire payment of interest on due instalments from 7.6.2001 to 1.7.2002 was waived. It was, further, submitted that interest was charged for the period from 1.7.2002 to 19.9.2002 and 10% rebate was not allowed as payment was not made within 60 days. It was, further, submitted that there was no provision in the project cost for providing HD/LD (high tension/ low distribution) network and no amount was charged from allottee for providing said facility and extension fee was rightly charged and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 did not appear and they were proceeded exparte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh as electricity connection was not provided within reasonable time and further allowed Rs. 1,100/ - as litigation cost. Both the parties preferred appeal and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of opposite party/petitioner but allowed appeal of respondent/complainant and enhanced compensation to Rs. 6.00 lakhs from Rs. 1.00 lakhs and further quashed expenses fee of Rs. 31,720/ - with cost of Rs. 10,000/ - against which these revision petitions have been filed. Respondent No. 4 was deleted. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission has committed error in enhancing compensation without any cogent reason and beyond the scope of prayer made in the complaint, hence revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that order passed by State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
IN this matter, this Commission issued limited notice on 18.1.2008 only to the extent whether compensation awarded by the State Commission is excessive having regard to the deficiency.
LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on account of harassment, mental agony and District Forum allowed compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh. Even then, Learned State Commission enhanced compensation to Rs. 6.00 lakhs beyond the prayer, hence, revision petition be allowed.
IT is admitted case that complainant prayed for grant of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony in the complaint.
THE core question to be decided is whether more compensation could have been granted beyond the prayer? Apparently, compensation more than claimed should not have been granted by the State Commission. Learned Counsel for respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon ''ble apex court in (i) The APSRTC & Anr. Vs. Ramadevi & Ors. - (1986 -2008 Consumer 13234 (NS); (ii) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors - (2003) 2 SCC 274.; (iii) Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors. - 2011) 10 SCC 634; (iv) Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. - (2010) 10 SCC 254; in which it was observed that in cases pertaining to injury or death in motor accident, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal can award just compensation, even amount exceeding the claimed amount. All the aforesaid judgments are pertaining to Motor Vehicle Act and these citations may not be applicable to the compensation claimed under Consumer Protection Act. In case of claim under Motor Vehicle Act, all claims irrespective of amount of compensation are to be filed before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal whereas under the Consumer Protection Act, law has provided three forums for filing complaints subject to pecuniary jurisdiction. In such circumstances, compensation beyond prayer made in the complaint cannot be allowed by any forum and Learned State Commission has committed error in enhancing compensation to tune of Rs. 6.00 lakhs from Rs. 1.00 lakh awarded by District Forum whereas complainant claimed only Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation in the complaint.
EVEN if it is assumed that excess amount than claimed in the complaint can be granted by Consumer Fora, there is no evidence on record to enhance compensation from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 6.00 lakhs. Learned State Commission while enhancing compensation observed as under: - ''''Lumpsum compensation awarded of Rs. 1 lac is inadequate. Complainants Gurjeet Singh and Gurdev Singh had suffered heavily due to non -start of the factory for want of electricity. They had made investment in the shape of construction of the building and purchase of machinery for which they must have taken loan and further must have been burdened with interest. Keeping all these facts in view, we think ends of justice would be met if it is enhanced to Rs. 6 lacs. ''''
Perusal of aforesaid observation reveals that compensation has been enhanced on imaginary basis without any evidence which could not have been done by appellate court. Complainant has not led any evidence, how much amount was invested by him in the building and how much interest was paid by him and how much profit he would have earned during absence of electricity connection and in such circumstances, there was no occasion to enhance compensation.
IN the light of aforesaid discussion, Revision Petition No. 4194 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed as limited notice regarding enhancement of compensation was given and Revision Petition No. 4270 of 2007 is to be allowed.
CONSEQUENT LY , Revision Petition No. 4194 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Revision Petition No. 4270 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 12.9.2007 passed by Learned State Commission in appeal No. 605 of 2007 -Gurjeet Singh & Anr. VS. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., is partly set aside and enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 6.00 lakhs is quashed, but, rest of the order is upheld. Parties to bear their own cost.