Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs RAJ BALA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 765/2012 - M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Raj Balaby which, while dismissing appeal in limine, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent booked luxury flat No.903 with OP/petitioner and made time to time payment as mentioned in the complaint. At the time of execution of agreement, OP intimated to the complainant that flat No. 903 stands allotted to someone else and was asked to opt for some ordinary flat for which the complainant refused. Then, OP returned two cheques for Rs.1,64,145/ - and Rs.1,91,250/ - given by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as OP was not in a position to give possession of flat No. 903, they offered similar flat at same rate at better location and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot flat No. L -1301 after accepting balance amount without interest. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner offered vacant flats on the current rate of Rs.2500/ - per sq. ft., but learned District Forum committed error in directing to allot and give possession of the flat without interest and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Counsel for the petitioner only challenged interest part before State Commission and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of list of vacant flats submitted by OP before District Forum reveals that 4 vacant flats were shown available, but it was also mentioned that they are available on current rate of Rs.2500/ -persq. ft. whereas, flat No. 903 was allotted at lesser rate. Learned District Forum did not consider this aspect and allowed complaint and directed OP to allot and give possession of flat No. L -1301 without interest. In memo of appeal, OP challenged award of interest as well rate of flat on which original flat was booked. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has dealt with only interest aspects and has not considered rate of flat to be charged and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to deal with this aspect also.

IT is, however, observed that OP in written statement filed before District Forum mentioned that OP offered complainant similar flat on same rate, but in the list of vacant flats claimed rate of Rs.2500/ - per sq. ft.

HON ''ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: ''''1. In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms: We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN - appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well -reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal ''.

We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission ''''.

IN the light of above judgment, it becomes clear that Appellate Court while deciding an appeal is required to deal with all the aspects and arguments raised by the appellant and as learned State Commission has not dealt with all issues of the case and arguments of the appellant, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal by speaking order after dealing with all the contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and impugned order dated 6.7.2012 passed by learned StateCommissionin Appeal No. 765/2012 - in Appeal No. 765/2012 - M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raj Bala is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal afresh on all the points raised in memo of appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 10.11.2014.