JAIPURIA SUNRISE GREENS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION; MANOJ VERMA Vs. JAIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint allegedly on behalf of 28 allottees of flats in a project namely 'Jaipuria Sunrise Greens' was filed by Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Residents Welfare Association. In annexure-A to the complaint, the names and particulars of as many as 28 allottees were given. The complaint was resisted on several grounds including nine preliminary objections. One plea taken in the reply was that each complainant had got a distinct and separate allotment letter mentioning the area that is allotted, which varies in all cases and they were distinct and separate with no identity of the cause of action. Another preliminary objection taken by the opposite party is that since the value of none of the flats was Rs. 1 crore or more, the complaint before this Commission is not maintainable.

(2.) When this complaint was taken up on 14.07.2015, Mr. Vineet Bhagat, counsel for the complainant sought adjournment on the ground that he would be filing an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order I Order 8 of CPC. He was permitted to file the said application within a week. IA/4747/2015 was accordingly filed by the complainants. On 04.09.2015, the learned counsel for the complainants stated that only 13 allottees wanted to continue with this complaint and therefore, he would be filing an amended memo of parties. When the matter came up for hearing on 28.09.2015, it was agreed between the parties that this complaint may be treated as a complaint by 13 persons whose names and particulars had been given in the memo of parties dated 04.09.2015. It was also agreed between the parties that the opposite party shall not raise any objection with respect to the aforesaid 13 persons joining together in the complaint. This was a consent order, passed on the concession given by the opposite party. In view of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, the application which the complainant had filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order I Order 8 of CPC was dismissed as not pressed and 13 persons mentioned in the memo of parties dated 04.09.2015 were substituted as the complainants. They were directed to file an amended complaint restricted only to their individual complaints as on the date of filing of the original complaint. The said amended complaint was to be filed within two weeks. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.11.2015, the counsel appearing for the complainants one of whom incidentally was the same counsel who had appeared on 28.09.2015, stated on instructions that they would not like to file an amended complaint in terms of the order dated 28.09.2015. We therefore, posted the matter for hearing on the maintainability of the complaint. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we felt that one more opportunity should be given to the complainants to file an amended complaint in terms of the consent order dated 28.09.2015. Therefore, vide our order dated 01.03.2016, we gave one more opportunity to them to file an amended complaint in terms of the said consent order dated 28.09.2015 making it clear that on their failing to do so, we may be constrained to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution.

(3.) Today initially, the learned counsel for the complainants expressed willingness to file an amended complaint with the modification that instead of 13, 14 allottees were found to be impleaded as complainant and he sought time for this purpose, but later, on instructions from Mr. Yogesh Balaine, one of the complainants, he states that the complainants do not want to file an amended complaint in terms of the consent order dated 28.09.2015 and the complaint, as it is, may be decided on its merits.