AMITA CORPORATION vs MANOHARLAL L.NARANG

THIS is an appeal against the order of 13th, February, 1991 by the State Commission of Gujarat in Original Complaint No. 3 of 1989. By its order, the State Commission granted the following reliefs to the complainant before it: "(A) Opposite Party No. 1 Amita Corporation shall return to each Complainant, the amount of Rs. 13,505/-with running interest thereon at 18 (eighteen) percent per annum from the date of receipt of the said sum till payment of the entire amount back to the respective Complainant. , (B) Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay to each complainant, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- five thousand, by way, of damages since the complainants have been deprived of price escalation of flats. (C) The Amita Corporation will also pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- one thousand, by way of costs to the Consumer Association. (D) The complaint against the other parties shall stand disposed of without any order and the complainants will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against them if they so desire. (E) Opposite Party No. (1) shall pay up or deposit before, this Commission the aforesaid amounts, together with interest and costs, within three months from the date of this order. (F) The Opposite Parties to bear their own costs� .

THE case goes back to mid "80''s. There were 8 complainants before the State Commission and three Opposite Parties, i.e., M/s. Amita Corporation, Mahalaxmi Construction Company and Dayakor Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. M/s. Amita Corporation was a builder and had put a scheme for construction of residential flats named as "Shodhannagar", opposite Saijpur Railway Station in the city of ''Ahmedabad. The appellant M/s. Amita Corporation was the promoter organiser of the housing project. The Complainants formed a Cooperative Housing Society and advanced funds to the builder for constructing the residential flats but the appellant M/s. Amita Corporation maintained that since it did not get the balance of the amount from the Gujarat Housing Financial Corporation, it had to stop the construction of work. Thereafter, it transferred its obligation of the whole of Shodhannagar Scheme to Mahalaxmi Construction Company by an agreement of November, 1985 and by virtue of the said agreement, the Mahalaxmi Construction Company was responsible and answerable to the complainants. Opposite Party No. 2 before the State Commission Mahalaxmi Construction Company stated that it had no knowledge that 8 omplainants had paid the amounts as alleged, the appellant M/s. Amita Construction Corporation had not trans ferred about 10,000 sq. mts. of land to them and that the same had been transferred to one Vithalbhai Patel and there was litigation going on and is pending between the appellant M/s. Amita Corporation (O.V. No. 1) and Mahalaxmi Construction Company (OT No. 2)

AT the hearing of this appeal, it transpired that M/s. Amita Corporation is stated to have misappropriated the amounts paid by the 8 respondent-complainants. We do not think that it is advisable to go into the matter further there are allegations of serious misappropriation and civil litigation is already going on between the parties of this dispute. After considering the facts of the case and the complexity of the matter and that there are allegations of misappropriation of flats, it is only just and fair that the parties are referred to seek redress by way of a suit in a Civil Court. The Consumer Forums are not appropriate Forums for settlement of such matters. With these observations, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the Complaint Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.