Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/486/2016

Shashi Kala Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar, Adv.

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	486 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2017

 

Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, # 10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalka Ji, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. The Managing Director/Principal Officer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, SCO 139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, UT, Chandigarh – 160008.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint case No.	:	487 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2017

 

Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, # 10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalka Ji, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. The Managing Director/Principal Officer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, SCO 139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, UT, Chandigarh – 160008.

                                                     .... Opposite Parties

                               

Complaint case No.	:	488 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2017

 

Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, # 10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalka Ji, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. The Managing Director/Principal Officer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, SCO 139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, UT, Chandigarh – 160008.

                                                     .... Opposite Parties

Complaint case No.	:	489 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.02.2017

 

Shashi Kala Gupta wife of Sh. Satinder Kumar Gupta, resident of House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, # 10, Local Shopping Complex, Kalka Ji, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer.
2. The Managing Director/Principal Officer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited, SCO 139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, UT, Chandigarh – 160008.

                                                     .... Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh.  Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.  Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

(ORAL)

              By this order, we propose to dispose of, following four consumer complaints:-

1.	CC/486/2016	Shashi Kala Gupta	Vs.	Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited & Anr.
2.	CC/487/2016	-do-	Vs.	-do-
3.	CC/488/2016	-do-	Vs.	-do-
4.	CC/489/2016	-do-	Vs.	-do-

2.           Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts, are the same.

3.           At the time of arguments,  it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the aforesaid complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

4.           It is specifically stated by Counsel for the complainant that the allotment letter/Buyer’s Agreement was never supplied to the complainant and further the document, which has now been placed on record by the Opposite Parties, showing it as an allotment letter/Buyer’s Agreement with the complainant’s signatures, has been forged and fabricated.

5.           To support the above-said contention, we may refer to paragraph No.16 of the complaint, which reads thus :-

“16. That in July, 2016, the complainant was shocked, when she came to know from the written statement given by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in earlier complaint filed by the complainant bearing No. CC/183/2016 that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have issued allotment letter of plot No. 640 dated 29.03.2013 in the name of complainant but the same was never supplied by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to the complainant. The allotment letter has been fabricated and signatures of the complainant have also been forged by Opposite Party No.1 & 2.”

Such a fact to prove fraud etc. needs recording of elaborate evidence.

6.           Such an issue came up for consideration before this Commission in case of “Pran Khosla Vs. Manager, Standard Chartered Bank & Ors., Complaint Case No.160 of 2015, decided on 06.10.2015.”. The facts were the same and taking note of the fact that proceedings cannot be disposed of in a summary manner, the aforesaid complaint was disposed of observing as under :-

“10.   After hearing the arguments of Counsel for the parties, this Commission is not inclined to interfere at the  instance  of the complainant. The factum of Mr.Harsh Chopra, as nominee of the deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, was to the notice of the complainant. It is apparent on reading of the document dated 25.01.2007 (Annexure C-12), which was given to the complainant by the Opposite Parties, when he met one Sh. G.D. Rastogi, to raise his claim. The subsequent correspondence between the parties also talks of above nominee of deceased. Very surprisingly when claiming succession certificate, said Mr.Harsh Chopra, was not added as a party. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of nomination form, the entire amount was released in favour of Mr.Harsh Chopra. This fact was to the notice of the complainant. Despite that even in this complaint, he was not impleaded as a party.

11.       The Counsel for the complainant has made an attempt to say that nomination form is a fabricated document. It is stated by him that if there was any nominee, other than the complainant, it was duty of the Opposite Parties to intimate him immediately, when information was given regarding death of the account holder, Smt. Santosh Thapar. It is further stated that Mr.Harsh Chopra, was known to one Bank employee, with whose connivance, the amount was got transferred in his account. To say so, reference was made to a writing at page 77 of the paper book. Besides as above, reference has also been made to various letters, written and received by the complainant, to show that money was released in a fraudulent manner, in favour of Mr.Harsh Chopra. To controvert the above said averment, the Opposite Parties have brought on record, various documents. It is stated that nomination was changed by deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, before her death, on 17.04.2004. It is not in dispute that Bank's note dated 25.01.2007 mentioning that Mr.Harsh Chopra, was nominee of the deceased, was to the notice of the complainant. However, no attempt was made to get an interim order passed by any competent Court.
12.       The complainant has made an attempt to fortify his plea of fraud, by making reference to various documents, on record. Above plea has been denied by the Opposite Parties. It is their claim that the amount, in dispute, was disbursed in favour of Mr. Harsh Chopra, as per nomination made by the deceased. It is case of the complainant that the alleged nomination was not in line of succession, as such, the amount should not have been released in his favour.
13.       We feel that the entire facts are such that for adjudication thereof, elaborate evidence has to be recorded and dealt with. The proceedings before this Consumer Fora are summary in nature and such an exercise is not possible before this Commission. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held  that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated  in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife.  The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the Policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, Revision Petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes   Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.”

In the judgment, referred to above, it was specifically held that proceeding before this Commission are summary, in nature, when factual position regarding committing of fraud etc. is required to be established by leading evidence and document, it is appropriate to refer the party to the competent Civil Court. In the present case also, it is the Buyer’s Agreement, on the basis of which, relief is being sought by the complainant, is in dispute. It is stated by the complainant that her signatures on the alleged Buyer’s Agreement placed on record by the Opposite Parties were forged. Dispute is also pending before the Police Authorities. In such a situation, it is not possible for us to proceed further with this complaint.

7.           In view of above, this complaint alongwith aforesaid three complaints i.e bearing Nos.487 of 2016, 488 of 2016 and 489 of 2016 stands disposed of. Liberty shall remain with the complainant to avail appropriate legal remedy, as per law.

8.           Certified copy of this order be placed in Consumer Complaint Nos.487 of 2016, 488 of 2016 and 489 of 2016.

9.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

February  8, 2017.                                               

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

 

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb