District Commission Misapplied Supreme Court's Ruling: Chandigarh State Commission Remands Sahara Prime City Case For Fresh Adjudication
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held that the District Commission has misapplied the decision of Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India as Sahara Prime City Ltd. was not party to that case.
The State Commission remanded the case to the District Commission for fresh adjudication.
Brief facts:
The complainant (appellant) applied for transfer of two housing units of Sahara Prime City Ltd. (respondent) from the original owners. The first unit was transferred successfully. However, even after competition of all the necessary formalities the second housing unit remained un-transferred. Despite submission of transfer requests on 12.10.2009 and sending letters on 07.08.2011 and 21.10.2011, the respondent did not answer.
Upon request for refund of both units with 15 % interest since 31.03.2005 and 20.01.2005, the respondent offered investment in Sahara India Fixed Deposit Scheme for three years instead of the refund. But the complainant refused. Further, the complainant also rejected the proposed transfer of the fixed deposit in the complainant's name by issuing invoice in favour of the original seller and deducting TDS.
The complainant felt frustrated as no housing unit was provided since 2005 and the respondent failed to refund even after sending legal notices on 09.10.2019 and 28.11.2019. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint in the District Commission for refund alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
In reply, the respondent contended that the District Commission lacks jurisdiction in the matter and the complainant is not a consumer as she is not the original seller. Further, the investment by complainant was speculative and the complaint was barred by limitation.
Through an order dated 10.04.2024, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. Reliance was placed on Pinak Pani Mohanty Versus Union of India and Others I.A. No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.191 of 2022, wherein it was held that all the depositors of Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies who want refund should approach Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Thus, the complainant was held as one of the depositors under Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies and the case was relegated to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Further, the respondent was ordered to refund as per the Registrar of the Central Cooperative Societies under the given supervision.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the District Commission, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (“State Commission”).
Contentions of the Appellant (complainant):
The Appellant argued that the District Commission has misapplied the Pinak Pani Mohanty's case (supra) as the complainant was not a depositor under the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies and the complaint was simply filed for non-transfer of housing unit.
Observation of the State Commission:
The Commission noted that the Sahara Prime City Ltd. was a corporate entity which was not party to the Pinak Pani Mohanty's case (supra) as the matter only dealt with four cooperative societies of the Sahara Group.
The Commission clarified that the complainant cannot be considered as depositor of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. Further, the grievance was directly linked to the company and not the cooperative societies as addressed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling.
Therefore, the State Commission set aside the erroneous decision of the District Commission and remanded the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh for fresh adjudication.
Case title: Smt. Neelima Joshi vs. Sahara Group & Ors.
Case No: Appeal No. 198 of 2024
Date of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024