URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Phool Singh Vijay

THIS matter was earlier heard by this Commission in RP No. 2472/2012, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar & Ors. versus Phool Singh Vijay '''' and an order was passed on 25.04.2013, remanding the matter back to the State Commission with the direction that the parties should be heard again and detailed appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case may be made and then the appeal be decided by giving reasons for coming to the conclusion. The parties were directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.05.2013. The State Commission have again decided the case vide their order dated 28.05.2013. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased a plot on 10.03.2003 from the petitioner, Urban Improvement Trust and allotment letter dated 1.04.2003 was issued in his favour. Later on, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.17,274/ - from the complainant towards penalty for non -construction of house for a long time. On a consumer complaint filed before the District Forum, the said Forum vide order dated 28.02.2011, ordered that a sum of Rs.17,274/ - should be returned to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission '') dismissed the appeal against this order vide their order dated 06.02.2012. The revision petition no. 2472/2012 was heard by this Commission and it was ordered on 25.04.2013 as below: - ''''3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order passed by the State Commission, saying that the said order is sketchy and no reasons have been given by the State Commission for agreeing with the findings of the District Forum. It was obligatory on the State Commission to have examined the entire facts of the case and then given detailed reasons for coming to their conclusion, but it was not done. The learned counsel further stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint, because an auction -purchaser is not a consumer in the eyes of law. The learned counsel pointed out our attention to the judgement given by the Hon ''ble Apex Court in UT Chandigarh Administration and Ors. Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Ors. as reported in AIR 2009 SC 1607. In the revision petition also, the petitioners have taken the main ground that the complainant in the present case, being auction -purchaser was not a consumer. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent however, maintained that the orders passed by the fora below were based on a correct appreciation of facts and legal principles. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the order passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal against the order passed by the District Forum indicates that the State Commission have not given any reasons for agreeing with the order of the District Forum. They have not discussed the merits of the case at all, rather they have simply observed that the District Forum have passed their order on the facts and circumstances applying its mind and there was no necessity to interfere with the same. 7. The facts of the case make it clear that the crucial issue to be decided in the present case is whether there was delay in delivering the possession and if it was so, whether the petitioner was at fault or to what extent? It has been stated by the petitioner in their written statement filed before the District Forum that the complainant has deposited the entire amount of the plot on 05.05.2003, but he did not appear before them for the execution of the lease deed and get possession letter, even after being informed by the petitioner on 31.05.2003. The complainant appeared for the first time on 20.4.2008 on which the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 41,579/ - towards municipal tax and Rs. 17,274/ - towards penalty for not carrying out construction and some other charges. When the said amounts were paid, the possession was delivered to the complainant. Based on this assertion of the petitioner, it is necessary to go into this question whether the late delivery of possession was due to the fault of the petitioner, or because of the non -appearance of the complainant. 8. In view of above discussion, we are inclined to accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and remit the case back to the State Commission with the direction that the parties should be heard again and detailed appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case may be made and then the appeal decided, giving reasons for coming to the conclusion. We, therefore, order accordingly with no order as to costs. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 24.05.2013. ''''

In response to this order, the learned State Commission has passed the impugned order on 28.05.2013. The presence of counsel for the parties has been recorded in the said order and it has been stated as follows: - '''' ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... On the basis of evidence and material on record after arriving at a finding the District Forum has used proper discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respondent/complainant. We find no error or illegality in the same so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal. It is also well settled that in case we accept the findings and discretion used by the District Forum, we are not required to refer again the entire evidence on record and give our own findings. The Consumer Protection Act,1986 has been enacted to provide an additional speedy remedy to protect the rights of a common consumer. As per section 3 of the Act the provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Even normal procedure of other laws have intentionally been omitted except for following the principles of natural justice to provide a speedy remedy to the consumers preferably within the stipulated time. The complaints and even the appeals have to be decided summarily after giving due opportunity to the other party. After having considered entire facts and circumstances since proper discretion has been used by the District Forum in granting appropriate relief to the respondent/ complainant, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Since the complainant has been deprived of the relief granted by the District Forum and has to face agony of appearing before the District Forum, the State Commission , the National Commission and again before the State Commission, in the interest of justice we deem it proper to direct the appellant to pay further cost of Rs.10,000/ - ( ten thousand ) to the respondent/ complainant alongwith the compliance to be made by the appellants for the directions issued by the District Forum within thirty days. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount if any deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal. ''''

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order passed by this Commission on 25.04.2013, saying that the State Commission had been directed to determine the question, ''whether the late delivery of possession by the petitioner to the complainant was because of the fault of the petitioner or fault of the complainant ''. Despite this direction, the State Commission had not gone into the merits of the case at all and simply reiterated their previous order, confirming the order of the District Forum. They had not given any reasons for coming to their conclusion. The learned counsel for respondents stated that the order of the State Commission was in accordance with law. In their counter affidavit filed before this Commission, they have stated that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner for not having given the possession in time and then saddling the respondent with penalty for non -construction.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the advanced before us. A plain reading of the order passed by the State Commission on 28.05.2013 reveals that the State Commission has just not cared to go into the specific issue involved in the case as per direction given in the remand order dated 25.04.2013. The State Commission were supposed to go into the question, ''whether the late delivery of possession was due to the fault of the petitioner or because of non -appearance of the complainant before them for a long time ''. It was the duty of the State Commission to go into the facts and circumstances of the case and then give their conclusion, giving reasons for the same. This direction had been given by the National Commission based on the proposition of law that filing a first appeal is the right to a party to litigation and it is the duty of the appellate court to go into the relevant facts and give their own reasons for coming to the conclusion. On the other hand, the State Commission have observed, ''''It is also well -settled that in case we accept the findings and discretion used by the District Forum, we are not required to refer again the entire evidence on record and give our own findings. '''' This assertion of the State Commission is not based on any sound reasoning, because they are supposed to advance reasons for accepting the findings of the District Forum; they just cannot say in one sentence that they accept the findings of the District Forum without specifying the basis on which they delivered their judgement. It is made out from the above facts that the impugned order dated 28.05.2013 has been made without proper analysis of the facts and circumstances on record. Hon ''ble Apex Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 - HVPNL Vs. Mahavir observed as under: ''''2. 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 the discussion above, there is no alternative but to remand the case back to the State Commission with the direction again that they should go into the entire evidence on their own and then give clear -cut findings on the issues involved, based on proper reasoning. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the revision petition, in question, is allowed.

THE parties are directed to appear before the State Commission again on 05.03.2014.