SAMBHAVANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. vs SUDHA PILLAI

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 4.4.94 of the State Commission, Delhi upholding the order of the District Forum, Delhi dated 12.4.93 by which the Petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs. 22,999 /- as interest by way of damages till the date of filing of the complaint, further interest at 12% per annum on that amount till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation.

THE Petitioners herein M/s. Sambhavana Builders Pvt. Ltd. formulated a scheme for construction of flats in the locality known as Vasant Kunj for working women in Delhi. The Complainant in her complaint alleged that while giving particulars of this scheme, Ms. Bhavani S. lyer informed the Complainant in May, 1989 that the Petitioners had undisputed title and possession over the land in Vasant Kunj and had all the clearances required under the law for commencing construction of the flat. In July, 1989 the Complainant was enrolled as a member on payment of Rs. 110/-and applied for a three bed rooms flat in the proposed building. The Complainant paid Rs. 65,000/- in July, 1989 and Rs. 30,000/- on 7.10.89 towards the first three instalments with an assurance by the Petitioners that the facility of financial assistance towards the cost of the flat was also available from L.I.C. or other housing financial institutions. The Culminant further alleged that she received some circulars from the Petitioners about the progress of the housing scheme, but in July, 1991 the Opposite Parties informed the members that "as on today we are awaiting a letter for the conversion of the land from D.D.A." and this was in total contradiction to the assurances and representations made earlier. The Complainant, there upon asked for the refund of the money with interest. The sum of Rs. 95,110/- was refunded to her but no interest was paid. She later on filed the complaint stating that facts and alleging that the Petitioner No. 1 and its Directors have deliberately the Complainant into believing that they had the requisite clearances for under taking construction but till date the Company''s proposal has not been cleared and that the land in question is in green-belt and cannot at all be utilised for construction of flats for residential purposes. She stated that having been put to considerable loss she prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Interest on Rs. 65,000/- @ 12% per annum from 12.7.89 to 6.10.89 amounting to Rs. 1845/-. (ii) Interest on the full amount of Rs. 95,000/- from 7.10.89 till 14.3.91 (the date of filing the complaint) @ 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 21,145/-. (iii) Besides Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and tension caused by the alleged evasive and humiliating actions of the Directors.

The District Forum, Delhi in its well-reasoned and detailed order rejected the objection of the Petitioners herein that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer of goods or services. It was held that the Opposite Parties had made out that it was engaged in the business of acquiring and developing land for building houses and in arranging housing loans and following the consistent view taken by this Commission, it came to the conclusion that the type of service which the Opposite Parties are rendering to the public for consideration is clearly covered by Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits it was found that the Opposite Parties had indulged in unfair trade practice in collecting huge amounts from persons like the Complainant on the basis of untrue representations and also there was clear deficiency in performance of the service which they had undertaken to render for consideration. As regards the quantum of compensation the District Forum found that the Complainant had to deposit the money with the Opposite Party after withdrawing the same from her Provident Fund and that of her husband and that thereby suffered loss of interest and that the interest at 12% claimed by her is very reasonable. The Opposite Party was accordingly directed to pay Rs. 22,900/- as interest by way damages till the date of filing of the complaint and further interest at the same rate till the date of payment, besides Rs. 2,000/- as compensation within two months.

THE Petitioners filed the appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was fixed for argument on 1.4.94 which was declared a holiday being the Good Friday and hence it was taken up for hearing on 4.4.94. The Counsel for the Petitioners herein (Appellants before the State Commission) was not present. The State Commission expressed the view that the District Forum has rightly granted the interest and compensation to the Complainant and found no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

THE Revision Petition was fixed for hearing before this Commission on 1st of March, 1995. An application for adjournment had been received from the Revision Petitioner stating "as the Counsel for the Appellant is out of town and the Appellant is bed ridden due to illness and has been advised bed rest for 4 weeks, the matter may be adjourned". This Commission did not wish to dispose of the Revision Petition without affording one last chance to the Revision Petitioners of being heard and, therefore, the case was adjourned. The Revision Petition came up for hearing on 28th of April, 1995 when again a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. We declined to grant the said request as no valid ground was made out and heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the Respondent who appeared in person. The main objection of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal on merits on 4.4.94 as the hearing had been fixed for 1.4.94 which was declared as a holiday due to Good Friday and the State Commission had to fix the fresh date of hearing and to issue notices to the parties. It is urged that the State Commission should not have adjourned the matter to 4.4.94 and should have adjourned the matter to a later date and should have given an opportunity to the parties to present their case. There is no merit in this submission. The Complainant in her version has asserted that the cases fixed for 1.4.94 were directed on 1.4.94 to be listed for hearing on 4.4.94 and that accordingly the parties whose cases had been posted on 1.4.94 were present before the State Commission on the next working day i.e. 4.4.94. This is the correct factual position as the Petitioners in its Revision Petition (para 6) also admit, "that on going through the said order it was noted that the matter which was listed on 1.4.94, and the said day being declared a holiday due to Good Friday was adjourned to 4.4.94". It was the duty of the Petitioners or their Counsel to have made enquiries on the next working day with a view to find out as to what directions were issued on 1.4.94 by the State Commission or to which date the hearing of the appeal was fixed. The parties must exercise due diligence and ascertain the next date fixed for hearing of the appeal and take necessary steps in compliance with the directions issued. The State Commission did not dismiss the appeal in default but went into the merits of the appeal and affirmed the findings and conclusions of the District Forum which we have noticed in some detail above.

WE find no error of jurisdiction or any illegality or irregularity in impugned order passed by the State Commission. The Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.