AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission') whereby the complaint preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed in limine because it is not a Consumer Dispute and the Appellant is at liberty to seek remedy before the Competent Court of Law. The State Commission had come to the aforesaid conclusion on the ground that the pricing factor is beyond the competence of Consumer Forum and it is only a Contractual Obligation between the parties. Further, the increase in the price of the land cannot be said to be cognizable by Consumer Forum and it is neither deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice, as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, in the absence of the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party other than the rise in pricing factor, there is no other ground agitated by the Complainant in this case.
We have heard Mr. D. V. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Tushar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Capt. Arun Sharma, Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Respondent.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the Complaint, the Appellant-Complainant has not questioned the price rise factor on the other hand, it has only been stated that on account of the increase in the price, which has been unnecessarily raised, the Appellant-Complainant is unable to meet with this huge price rise and therefore, seeks refund.
For ready reference, paragraph 9 of the complaint is reproduced below:
"9. That the Society unnecessarily raised the price of the unit to Rs.62,65,700/- and thereafter, Society started demanding more than Rs.80 lakhs. Since, the complainant was unable to meet with this huge price rise, she wrote a letter requesting for the refund of the amount from the society."
4(a). The reliefs claimed by the appellant is also reproduced below:
"Ït is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present complaint may kindly be accepted by this Hon'ble Commission and the following relieves be granted:
Order the refund of the amount i.e. Rs. 14,94,540/- deposited by the complainant.
Order opposite parties to pay the interest @18% P.A. till the date of realization of the amount.
Award compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and stress and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
Award litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/-."
Capt. Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent-Opposite Party stated that the Respondent-Society is running on 'no profit no loss basis' and whatever the Society has to pay for the land allotted to it has to be recovered from the shareholders to whom the land had been allotted and the increase in the price of the land allotted to the appellant is on account of demand raised by the authorities, therefore, it cannot be said to be undue increase in the price. He further submits that huge amount is due to be paid by the Appellant and merely because the Appellant is not able to pay the amount, the Complainant could not have been filed at all. They have been given proper opportunity and their grievances had been considered at the time of increase in price.
From a perusal of the record, we feel that it is not necessary to go into the merits of this case, as to whether the Appellant is liable to pay the balance outstanding amount or whether the increase in price of the land allotted was unfair or not for the simple reason that the Appellant has not questioned the increase in the price and she is only claiming refund of the amount. The refund is being claimed on the ground that she is unable to pay huge increase in the price of the land.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised in the Complaint is well within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and should have been gone into by the State Commission instead of dismissing the Complaint in limine. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding the Complaint afresh. The Complaint is restored to its original number. We request the State Commission to decide the Complaint in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, if possible, within six months.
Learned counsel for the Appellant shall file certified copy of this Order before the State Commission on 01.10.2019.
Order dasti.