Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/547/2019

Piara Singh Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Kumar Aggarwal Managing Director, Shivalak Farms Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pritam Singh Dhanoa Adv.

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	547/2019
Date of Institution	:	17.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.08.2023

 

                     

            

 

Piara Singh Rana age 68 years s/o Sh.Hussan Singh r/o H.No.3863, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh presently residing at H.No.2334, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

 

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

Ram Kumar Aggarwal, Managing Director, Shivalak Farms Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

Present Address:

H.No.1084, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Complainant in person. Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP.

   

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a plot measuring 4500 sq. ft. bearing No.214 named Mini Farm-cum-Picnic Spot in the revenue limits of Village Rehawar (Rahaur), Sub Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula vide sale deed dated 30.07.1998 for a total consideration of Rs.18000/- from the OP, which was registered in pursuance to the directions passed by this Commission vide order dated 21.07.1998 (Annexure C-5).  Subsequently, the OP disappeared and could not be traced despite making efforts. Later on, it came to the notice through news cutting ((Annexure C-7) that the OP and his wife have been arrested and convicted in some other case by the Hon'ble State Commission. Thereafter, the complainant along with other plot holders constituted a society and got it registered on 13.01.2017 at Chandigarh (Annexure C-8). Subsequently, the Halqa Kanungo demarcated the plots after issuance of the notices to the parties.  After scrutinizing the copy of survey map, it came to light that the plot of the complainant bearing Khasra No.42/28 falls int eh bed of River Tangri and is unfit for the purpose it had been purchased. The complainant approached the SSP, UT, Chandigarh for registration of the FIR against the OP.  The Society of the complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court for registration of the FIR against the OP  by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative legal remedy.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to either to provide facilities and to earmark the plots as per the layout plan shown to the complainant at the time of negotiations for sale as promised in the advertisement dated 08.06.1990 and to allot plot at some other place away from the river and its banks, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of the notices, the OP filed written version stating that the complainant purchased 1 Kanal land i.e. 20/94 part of land bearing Khasra No.42/28, raqba 4 Kanals 14 Marlas and is co-sharers in the land vide sale dated 30.07.1998 and the land sold to the complainant is not a colony but an agricultural land which is clearly mentioned in the sale deed. It has further been stated that since the sale deed qua the land has already been executed in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer.  It has further been stated that in the year 2003, they shifted its office from SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and the relevant information of shifting the registered office of the company was given to the Registrar of the Companies in accordance with law.  It has further been stated that the OP is not responsible for any geographical changes if any in the land, purchased by the complainant. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     The Complainant filed replication to the written version of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.     Along with the complaint, the complainant has also filed an application dated 19.06.2019 under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)    seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint on the ground that the same was occurred because the OP closed its office at SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and its directors also disappeared and were not traceable. In the application for condonation of the delay, the complainant has mentioned the similar facts as stated in the complaint aforesaid.
5.     The aforesaid application has been resisted by the OP by filing reply to the same and stating that the contents of the same are wrong and hence denied.  It has been denied that OP closed its office situated at SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and the office of the OP was very much working from the said address upto 2003. However in the year 2003, they shifted its office from SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and the relevant information of shifting the registered office of the company was given to the Registrar of the Companies in accordance with law.  In the end the prayer for dismissal of the application along with the complaint has been made.
6.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
7.     We have heard the complainant in person and the ld. Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.
8.     After taking into consideration the rival pleadings and contentions of the parties, it is observed that there is weight in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the OP that the relevant information of shifting of the registered office of the OP Company from SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh was given to the Registrar of the Companies in accordance with law and as such the plea of the complainant that the OP disappeared after closing its office in Sector 35-B, Chandigarh for the last 20 years cannot be believed because the complainant could easily find out the address of the OP from the office of the Registrar of Companies or even from the internet.    If the complainant files the complaint well within time even then the service upon the OP may be effected through “publication” by the concerned Court of law. So the complainant cannot be granted condonation of delay of 20 years especially when the new address of the OP can easily be obtained from the office of Registrar of Companies. Even otherwise, the complainant is bound to explain each and every day’s delay in filing the present complaint as per law, which the complainant has miserably failed.  
9.     In view of the above discussion, the application seeking condonation of delay of 20 years in filing the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.  Simultaneously, the complaint of the complainant is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
10.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 17/08/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER