S.N. VOHRA vs Chandigarh Housing Board

ON behalf of respondent - Chandigarh Housing Board, appearance has been put through Pradeep Bedi and Associates and power of attorney duly signed by Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate has been placed on record. Record of the complaint case has been received from the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh.

MR. H.S. Minhas, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that this Commission in earlier matters has partly allowed the appeals and set aside the costs imposed on the complainants by the District Forum for filing the complaint on false and frivolous ground. The impugned order of the District Forum on merit was, however, upheld in appeal. Reference may be made to Appeal Case No. 311 of 2002 titled as ''Pankaj Gupta v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Another, which was partly allowed vide order dated 31.3.2003, to the extent that the order imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellants/complainants has been set aside and in other aspects, the appeal was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that this Commission has taken this view in earlier cases and, therefore, the facts of this appeal are squarely covered by the decision earlier rendered by this Commission in the case of Shri Pankaj Gupta (supra).

Resultantly, this appeal is also decided in the same terms as in the case of Shri Pankaj Gupta (supra) and accordingly the appeal on merit is dismissed. However, the costs of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on the complainant is set aside as the complaint cannot be said to be frivolous and vexatious under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At the time of filing the appeal, the appellant has filed 50% of the amount of costs as required under proviso (2) to Section 15 of the C.P. Act. This demand draft shall be returned in original after retaining photocopy of the same on record of appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal partly allowed.