AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing.
This petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 17.05.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 137 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 03.02.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 279 of 2007.
Heard the learned counsel on admission. Perused the record, including the District Commission's Order dated 03.02.2014, the State Commission's impugned Order dated 17.05.2016 and the petition.
The District Commission made its appreciation of the evidence and vide its Order dated 03.02.2014 dismissed the complaint, inter alia observing that the complainant had not come before the forum with clean hands and had hidden material facts in order to obtain unjust gains by abuse of the process.
The complainant (the petitioner herein) appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 17.05.2016 dismissed the appeal, with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the two opposite parties (the respondents herein).
As such this petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below.
The nub of the State Commission's appraisal, as contained in paras 6 and 7 of its Order, is reproduced below for ready reference:
Complaint no. 279 / 2007 by the appellant / complainant that the appellant / complainant on date 06/12/2007 instituted it before the District Forum Bilaspur and had prayed for compensation to be provided from the respondent / opposite party Ratnesh Jaiswal and Ashma Marketing, on the dismissal of the complaint this appeal has been filed against that complaint dated 03/02/2014. The appellant / complainant by submitting a complaint before the commission under order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has prayed requesting for permission for the name of HDFC bank to be added as a party. This request has been dismissed, but with this application the other order dated 03/02/2014 passed by the District Forum wherein complaint no. 207 / 2009 had been passed which was submitted by the appellant / complainant on date 10/08/2009 in which as a respondent / opposite party HDFC Home Finance Limited, Ratnesh Jaiswal, M/s Ashma Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has been added as a respondent / opposite party and in Raj Gharana Township in relation to stop the auction of his said disputed house no. A 53 is seeked relief for the order given to respondent no. 1/ opposite party no. 1. The District Forum by abrogating this case on 03/02/2014 both the cases were dismissed. Libel case no. 207 / 2009 by the District Forum which the appellant / complainant in respect of his same house by making the bank party has submitted the second complaint which is not sustainable. Two complaints cannot be submitted on one single reason of complaint. Because, the appellant / complainant in the parallax period itself of the first complaint submitted with complaint no. 279 / 2007, "on date 20/10/2010 the disputed house no. A 53 Raj Gharana Township Bilaspur had sold it in auction to a person named Sanjay" this fact is hidden by the appellant / complainant, whereas the appellant / complainant could have alleged by making the amendment. In this way the appellant / complainant from the opposite party / respondent no. 1 & 2 had attempted to get money as compensation. Accordingly, those that were alleged in the second complaint the first complaint was abrogated.
The accepted fact is that for the above house for the compensation payment the facility of financing was taken. Loan of amount Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) was approved, the payment of which was done on time to Ashma Marketing and Ratnesh Jaiswal. Because the appellant / complainant did a mistake in making the payment on time for the bank loan installment, therefore, under Sarfaesi 2002 the said house was auctioned by the bank. In this way opposite party / respondent through the appellant / complainant has neither made any payment to Ratnesh Jaiswal or Ashma Marketing nor had done to loan amount repayment to HDFC Bank. According to the contract due to non payment on time was not eligible to receive the possession of the house. The appellant / complainant in his complaint has alleged that he has made a payment of Rs. 7,71,250/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only), whereas this payment was done by the bank. According to the construction agreement the return amount decided was Rs. 8,42,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Only). In this way payment of amount Rs. 70,750 (Rupees Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) was pending. In the compensation para also the appellant / complainant has not asked for the compensation categorically for the possession of the house to be provided but the count of all the relief amount asked by him has been done till the date of the possession provided. The appellant / complainant has requested for the relief deposited interest amount and relief for mental harassment but has not directly demanded for the possession of the house to be provided. According to our opinion the appellant / complainant was not liable to receive any kind of compensation from the respondent / opposite party the complaint submitted by him was not sustainable.
(as per the translated version supplied by the petitioner with his petition)
A perusal shows that the State Commission has passed a reasoned order, aptly dealing with the issues germane to the matter.
Ex facie , we see no merit in the petition. There appears no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
We may also mention that the petition was filed in 2016. Enabling the Commission to entertain the same, i.e. to have the hearing on admission, has been needlessly procrastinated by the petitioner for about 05 years, till 2021.
The petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of worth, is dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition, immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission, immediately.