Case nº First Appeal No. 369 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 18/01/2017 in Complaint No. 21/2017 of the State Commission Chandigarh) of NCDRC Cases, April 24, 2017 (case Ashoo Tuli & Anr Vs Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member |
| Resolution Date | April 24, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
These two First Appeals, by the Complainants, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), are directed against a common order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Cases No.20 and 21 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Complaints in limine, observing thus (FA/369/2017):
-
On hearing Counsel for the complainants, at the admission stage, and also on perusal of the entire paper book, we are of the considered opinion that both the complaints need to be dismissed at the preliminary stage. Possession of the unit was offered to the complainants, within the agreed period. Thereafter, without raising any question, in terms of provisions of the Agreement, sale deed qua the plot, in question, was got executed by the complainants in their name. Thereafter, they became owners of the said property. If they had any grouse qua non-development at the site, it was their duty to object to it before execution of the sale deed and further it is on record that to compensate the complainants qua any deficiency in providing service, the expenses for registration of sale deed was born by the opposite parties. It is also mentioned in the complaint, that some more amount was also paid to the complainants, to compensate them. If that is so, how they can now file a complaint and can raise claim for further grant of compensation, without making any case, as to what loss they have suffered; and how they are entitled to get an amount of Rs.25 lacs, towards mental agony and physical harassment, by way of filing this complaint. It is further stated that when getting sale deed executed, a promise was made with the complainant, by the opposite parties, to compensate them further. When that promise was made?; by whom it was made?; and where it was made?, it is not coming out from the complaint. It appears that if such promise was made, it might have been made, when the sale deed was executed at a place, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, as such, this complaint is not maintainable at Chandigarh. Counsel for the complainants was advised to file this complaint before the appropriate Fora; however, he refused to do so.
Furthermore, it is case of the complainants that they were pressurized, forced and undue influence was exerted on them, by the opposite parties, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial