Appeal Before Higher Forum Must Align With Relief Initially Sought At Lower Forum: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against Pearl Infrastructure, citing that the relief sought in the appeal differed from the original complaint, rendering it unsustainable. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant highlighted concerns about the Pearls City Mohali project by Pearl Infrastructure, alleging it...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against Pearl Infrastructure, citing that the relief sought in the appeal differed from the original complaint, rendering it unsustainable.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant highlighted concerns about the Pearls City Mohali project by Pearl Infrastructure, alleging it was embroiled in a significant political scam worth Rs. 11,000 Crores under Punjab's 2003 Industrial Policy. It was argued that the State Government, with support from a financial institution, improperly backdated a Project Management Agreement, bypassing regulatory requirements such as advertising, licensing, and maintaining escrow accounts. Funds collected were allegedly transferred overseas for purposes unrelated to the project, while housing loans were approved without proper verification. The delay in resolving these issues affected the complainant's ability to obtain possession of a residential plot, leading to a request for urgent judicial consideration and intervention to address the situation. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of Punjab, which allowed the complaint. However, the complainant appealed against the order by the State Commission for modification. The appeal was filed with a delay of 2321 days. The complainant sought a condonation for the said delay.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the appeal brought before them, noting that the complainant's primary grievance stemmed from the inability to execute a favorable order issued by the State Commission in their favor. Despite the State Commission's ruling in their favor initially, the appellant sought modifications through the appeal process, introducing new relief not previously sought. This change in strategy prompted the commission to scrutinize the grounds for condoning the significant delay of 1515 days in filing the appeal. Drawing on legal precedents such as Sheo Raj Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Another, Basawaraj & Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the commission underscored the necessity for a stringent application of limitation periods. These cases established that the discretion to condone delay hinges on demonstrating sufficient cause, with negligence or lack of bona fides being detrimental factors. The commission emphasized that the relief sought in the appeal, which differed from the original complaint, rendered it unsustainable. This stance was reinforced by the principle that an appeal must align with the relief initially sought at the lower forum.
Consequently, the commission dismissed the appeal on grounds of both procedural limitation and lack of merit. The National Commission advised the appellant to pursue remedies through pending execution petitions related to the State Commission's original order, highlighting that the right course of action should align with the judicial process already underway.
Case Title: Devendra Kumar Goel Vs. M/S. Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 274/2024