Shiv Kumar Aggarwal vs CHAIRMAN, ANSAL HOUSING And CONSTRUCTION LTD.

COMPLAINANTS Shiv Kumar Aggarwal and Shailender Aggarwal have invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint against Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., alleging deficiency in service on their part, in the construction of the building according to the agreed standards, specifications and stipulations incorporated in the agreement and for claiming on that account refund of the amount of Rs. 2,42,921/-, interest @ 24% thereon from 10th October, 1995 amounting to Rs. 2,76,693/- alongwith compensation for mental, physical tension and expenses incurred etc., amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and business loss amounting to Rs. 2 lacs.

ACCORDING to the complainants, they had taken on lease on 16th January, 1990 a commercial space No. 101 measuring 506.45 square ft. from the opposite party situated in their building called Sampark No. 1 at plot No. 195, Sector 5, Panchkula. The complainants paid the price of the plot as stipulated in the agreement entered into between the parties but the opposite party continued to make further demands of money on different grounds from time to time. It has also been alleged that the opposite party also shifted their ground by altering the conditions and other stipulations regarding demand of money, leasing of space and construction of structure thereon from time to time. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed for the refund of the amount paid and for claiming compensation therefor. The opposite parties in their written reply raised a preliminary objection that the dispute raised by the complainants was based on pure breach of contract in the nature of lease of immovable property, which could only be examined and decided by the Civil Court. It is further pleaded that the consumer jurisdiction being limited to examine deficiency in service in the light of the concluded agreement between the parties, the terms of the agreement could not be varied by the Court nor could be go beyond the same. Firm reliance has, therefore, been placed on the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of U.P. Housing & Development Board v. Smt. Madhushila Singh, reported as I (1991) CPJ 338 (NC), in which it was held as under: "that a complainant is not entitled to reopen the terms of the concluded contract voluntarily entered into nor do such complaints fall within any of the Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 2(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act".

On merits, the complaint has been stoutly contested, by pleading that no area of the site allotted by HUDA has been partitioned and the space has been allotted strictly in accordance with their terms of the lease and the possession of the allotted space No. 101 was offered to the complainants on 4th April, 1995; hence, according to the opposite parties, there is no breach of contract on their part nor could any deficiency in service be attributed to the opposite parties.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that as the dispute raised in the complaint is with regard to various clauses of the agreement entered between the parties, its alleged breach by the opposite party in various assertions and the meticulous compliance and specific performance asserted by the opposite party, the dispute can more appropriately be gone into and adjudicated upon in a regular suit before the Civil Court and certainly not under the limited jurisdiction conferred by the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, following the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of U.P. Housing & Development Board v. Smt. Madhushila Singh, (supra) we decline to entertain the complaint and relegate the complainants to seek redress of their grievance before the Civil Court. The complaint stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.