NATASHA VERMA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking amendment of the complaint. The complainant wants to amend the complaint so as to claim interest on the payments made by her with effect from the date of actual payment instead of from the proposed date of possession. The application has been opposed by the opposite party primarily on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of a complaint. Reliance in this regard is placed primarily upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Hitendra Pathik v/s. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., : VII (2011) SLT 404 : IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) : (2011) 9 SCC 451. Support is also sought to be taken from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savita Garg v/s. National Heart Institute, : VI (2004) SLT 385 : IV (2004) CPJ 40 (SC) : (2004) 8 SCC 56 and Ethiopian Airlines v/s. Ganesh Saboo, : VII (2011) SLT 371 : IV (2011) CPJ 43 (SC) : (2011) 8 SCC 539. Sec. 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act expressly confers upon a District Forum, the following powers vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit:

(2.) Sec. 22(1) of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the provisions of Sec. 13 for the disposal of the complaint by the District Forum and the rules thereunder, shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary by this National Commission, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the said Commission.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that only limited powers of the Civil Court having been vested in the District Forum, the remaining powers available to the said Court under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. This was also his submission that when only limited powers are conferred upon a Tribunal, the conferment and use of the remaining powers is ruled out by implication.