Subash Kumar Jain vs CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) has decided a bunch of five consumer complaints bearing Nos. 978 to 982 all of 2002 vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2004 passed in main Complaint Case No. 976 of 2002. All the complaints have been dismissed on the ground that the matter of pricing policy is not a consumer dispute.

FEELING aggrieved, all the complainants have filed separate first appeals bearing Nos. 79 to 83 all of 2005 against the said order of the District Forum. Upon issuance of notice Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate appeared for the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short hereinafter to be referred as CHB)/respondent. The records of the complaint cases were summoned and received. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. S.P. Thukral, Advocate and going through the impugned judgment and order as also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, we find that after noting down the pleadings of the parties and mentioning the rival submissions made before the District Forum including the citation of case laws and without recording the finding of fact on the dispute raised before the District Forum, the District Forum held in the last but one paragraph as under : ''After hearing the learned Counsel for parties and going through the record we find that in the present complaint the complainant has alleged that he has been discriminated against in charging the cost of the flat, thus in this manner the present dispute relates to the pricing policy and as held by the Honble National Commission in Housing Board Haryana v. Kartar Singh Etc. of Hissar (supra), the dispute relating to the pricing policy cannot be termed as consumer dispute and in case any amount has been illegally charged the proper procedure for the complainant is to recover it from the Housing Board through a Civil Court. As the said judgment of Honble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, so this complaint is ordered to be filed, however, prejudice to the right of the complainant to seek remedy before the competent Civil Court, as admissible under law.''

MR . S.P. Thukral, Advocate for the complainants after referring to the various pleas raised in the complaint case in paragraph Nos. 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 contended that the District Forum has totally misunderstood the controversy raised in these cases and the District Forum has not even decided the complaint case inasmuch as the complaint cases were ordered to be filed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to seek remedy before the competent Civil Court, as admissible under law.

IT will appear from the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the complaint cases that the main grievance of the complainants was about being discriminated regarding the charging of the price for the flats as under : ''....From the perusal of Annexure C -3, it would indicate that respondents have arbitrarily, illegally and also without stating any logical reasons whatsoever has fixed the price of flat as Rs.12,97,700/ - whereas the cost of flat was fixed by the respondents for other similar situated allottees to that of the complainant as Rs. 11 lacs for HIG Upper and Rs. 8.37 lacs for Ground Floor and First Floor/Second Floor respectively.'' from such allottes who were allotted these flats in the draw of lots and were charge the aforesaid value of the flats. It is on this basis that the complainants contended that the area, vicinity, flats being similar in nature and the vicinity being the same, the complainants could not be charged with an amount higher than the price mentioned in the letter of allotment and recovered from similarly situated persons. It will amply seen that the District Forum did not devote its attention to settle the disputed facts before it and did not record a finding either way regarding the submissions and the averments made in the complaint case. In the absence of any categorical finding on the controversy raised before the District Forum, we find it exceedingly difficult to proceed with the appeals, which practically in the absence of any such finding would be the decision of the complaints as a Court of original jurisdiction rather than as an Appellate Forum. Since the District Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly in adjudicating the dispute, we are of the considered opinion that the appeals have considerable merit and deserve to be allowed and the complaint cases deserve to be remanded with the direction to decide them afresh after recording a clear and categorical finding on the disputed questions of facts and after analysing the material placed on record and also taking into consideration the law applicable to the facts, which have been found proved. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The complaints Case Nos. 978 to 982 all of 2002 are remanded to the District Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh for decision afresh within a time frame of two months from the date of receipt of the record and presence of the parties before it. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh on 21.7.2005. It is made clear that no further evidence shall be permitted in all the complaint cases. The costs of the appeals shall remain easy. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeals allowed. -