SUNITA VARMA Vs. MONT VERT ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu revision petition under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint no.151/2009 was filed by Mrs.Sunita Varma and Mr.Vinodkumar Varma before the District Consumer Forum, Pune, whereby the complainant sought reliefs as stated in para 16 of the complaint. Considering the facts described herein above and documents produced herewith, the Complainant do hereby most sympathetically prays that:

(2.) On going through the said reliefs, it appears that the complainant desired to cancel booking of flat No.704 admeasuring 953 sq.ft. D building in Mont Vert Seville at Village Wakad, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, and, thereafter, he has demanded Rs.6,40,644/- which he has paid to the original opponents in the complaint. He has also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- by way of mental harassment and cost equally. Complainants also claims the interest. As stated above, complaint was filed on 15/4/2009 and it was rejected by the Acting President and the member of District Consumer Forum, Pune by order dated 17/4/2009. Said order is to the following effect:- After careful scrutiny of the record ab initially we found no substance in the said complaint. As there is no evidence on record to show that there is deficiency in service at the hand of O.Ps. Secondly there is no agreement. Complaint is not admitted. Hence rejected.

(3.) After passing of this order, President of the said Forum has addressed confidential letter to the President of the State Commission dated 05/05/2009 and after going through the said letter, erstwhile President of State Commission by order dated 11/5/2009 has taken cognizance under section17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After going through the complaint and the annexures which have been pointed out to us, it appears that the flat was booked with the opponents in the said complaint. Not only that, but the amount was also deposited towards the flat. Therefore, it was not a case which could have been rejected in limine at the time of admission itself. While admitting the complaint the District Consumer Forum is supposed to look to the averments and the documents which are annexed with the complaint and find out as to whether there is substance in the complaint. Minimum which is required to be considered is that the complaint involves a tribal issue, which requires to be adjudicated by the forum. Complaint when filed before the District Consumer Forum is an original proceeding and therefore, several points which may be doubtful at the time of initiation of complaint may be clarified subsequently by filing relevant documents and/or by evidence to that effect. When complainant disclosed that he has booked flat with the builder, it was sufficient to infer that he was to provide a service and thereby, to give possession of the flat to the complainant. Further material on record is that the part consideration has been paid to the builder. Therefore, there was no prima facie material to contradict the averments made in the complaint and the documents on record. However, surprisingly, both the members who passed the order have observed that there is no evidence.