GOVIND NARAIN GUPTA Vs. SUDHAKAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal under Sec. 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act') assails the orders dtd. 10/9/2020 and 12/7/2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.290 of 2018 and Review Application No.6 of 2020.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had purchased a plot of land bearing Plot No.13/7028 situated in Rajajipuram, Lucknow admeasuring 269.70sq.mtr. from one Radhemohan S/o Ramdev Chaudhary for a sale consideration of Rs.55.00 Lakhs vide Registered Sale Deed before the Sub Registrar, Lucknow on 10/10/2013. The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a Builder's Buyers Agreement on 9/9/2014., as per which the Respondent undertook to construct a residential complex comprising of ground floor plus three floors by making his own investment in return for which there was an agreement of 50% share in each of the floors between the parties. As per Clause 12 of the said Agreement, the Respondent agreed to complete the construction within 24 months. On account of various circumstances, the Appellant filed a civil suit before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Lucknow bearing Suit No.2962 of 2015 for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction against the Respondent on 2/12/2015. According to the Appellant, on 5/7/2016, the Respondent undertook before the Civil Judge in the civil suit that in view of an Arbitration Clause in the Agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent, the arbitration proceedings should have been invoked. The Civil Suit was accordingly disposed of on 5/7/2016 on this ground with the liberty to the Appellant to approach the competent court for arbitration. In view of the persistence of certain differences between the Appellant and the Respondent, the Appellant preferred Consumer Complaint No.290 of 2018 before the State Commission on 27/8/2018 seeking various directions and documents from the Respondent. By way of the impugned order dtd. 10/9/2020, the State Commission dismissed the Complaint on the ground that Civil Suit dtd. 9/9/2014 was pending before the Civil Court, although, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this Suit already stood disposed of. Thereafter, Review Application No.6 of 2020 was filed before the State Commission on 14/10/2020 which was also dismissed on the ground that a Civil Suit was pending before the Civil Court. The Appellant is before this Commission challenging the impugned orders on the ground that the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Civil Suit already stood disposed of and that it was settled law that the Appellant could decide to either go for arbitration or a consumer complaint as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Emaar MGF land Limited vs. Aftab Singh (Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 (Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017). The Appellant is before this Commission with the prayer to:

(3.) The Respondent remained unrepresented despite notice and was proceeded ex parte on 31/5/2023. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Appellant has also filed short synopsis of written arguments.