SHASHI KANTA SHARMA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for amendment of the complaint, has been filed by the complainant, on the grounds that, for the first time, the opposite parties along with the written statement, appended reply to the legal notice dated 19.9.2014, copy whereof is Annexure R -9, wherefrom it transpired that they (opposite parties), had fabricated letters and plea that possession of the plot, in question, was offered to her (complainant), earlier in the year 2009 and, later on, in the year 2011. It was stated that the parties are governed by the Punjab Apartments and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA, 1995). It was further stated that the opposite parties, being promoters had to obtain the occupation and completion certificates, under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, but they never obtained the same. It was further stated that it was conceded by the opposite parties, that completion certificate from GMADA had not yet been obtained, until 16.12.2011. It was further stated that the opposite parties failed to obtain regular electricity supply, for want of clearance from the Pollution Control Board. It was further stated that even the opposite parties failed to install sewerage and water treatment plants earlier, which were stated to have been provided, only in the year 2014. It was further stated that the opposite parties had been sending contradictory letters dated 18.4.2014 Annexure C -4 demanding a sum of Rs. 14,26,684.69, and dated 25.8.2014 Annexure C -7, demanding a sum of Rs. 10,91,205. It was further stated that from the perusal of the statement of account dated 20.12.2010 Annexure C -2, it was quite clear that till that time, the total outstanding against the complainant was Zero. It was further stated that the interest on delayed payment of instalments, if any, was waived off, by the opposite parties, and they could not demand Rs. 3,09,916, on account of the same. It was further stated that even the opposite parties failed to pay the penalty/compensation, as per the terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer's Agreement, executed between the parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid pleas could not be taken in the complaint, as some of these were not available to the complainant, at the time of filing the same. It was further stated that amendment of the complaint is every essential for the just decision of the case. It was further stated that, in case, the amendment is allowed, the same would not cause any prejudice to the opposite parties, nor would it change the nature of the case. In reply to the application, the opposite parties pleaded that the same (application) had been filed at a belated stage. It was stated that the opposite parties filed the written statement and affidavit, by way of evidence, on 28.11.2014 and the complaint was adjourned to 8.12.2014, for filing rejoinder, if any. It was further stated that, after going through the contents of the written statement, at that point of time, the complainant had the opportunity to take up any plea, to rebut the assertions, made by the opposite parties, in the same (written statement). It was further stated that the complaint was fixed for final arguments on 11.12.2014, when the Counsel for the complainant asked for filing an application for amendment of the complaint, and the same was allowed by this Commission. It was further stated that the complainant filed an application for amendment, in the prayer clause of the complaint. It was further stated that, however, subsequently, on 17.12.2014, the complainant chose to withdraw the said application, with liberty to file a fresh one. It was further stated that this Commission, vide order dated 17.12.2014 had granted permission, to withdraw that application, but specifically observed in the same that it could be done only, if permitted by law. It was further stated that the application was not maintainable. It was further stated that the application has been filed by the complainant, on the basis of false and frivolous pleas. It was further stated that the paragraphs sought to added, by way of amendment in the complaint, are not on account of submission of copy of the reply to legal notice by the opposite parties, along with the written statement but to cover up her own lapses, by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant kept on asking for adjournments, from time to time. It was further stated that, in case, the amendment is allowed that would amount to reopening of the case, thereby further delaying the disposal thereof. It was further stated that the amendment was neither essential, nor necessary for the just adjudication of the case. It was further stated that, in case, the amendment is allowed, a great prejudice would be caused to the opposite parties.

(2.) WE have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

(3.) HOWEVER , at the time of allowing or refusing the application for amendment, the Consumer Commission, is required to see, as to whether, the amendment sought for, is essential for the just decision of case or not. If the Consumer Fora comes to the conclusion, that amendment sought for, in the pleadings is essential for the just decision of the case, then no technicality can stand in its way, to deny the same. In the instant case, no doubt, in the written statement, the opposite parties, took up the plea that, for the first time, the predecessor of the complainant was offered possession, in 2009 vide letter Annexure R -1 and, thereafter, the complainant was offered possession, vide letter dated 16.12.2011, Annexure R -2, yet, in the replication, this fact was denied by her (complainant), in clear -cut terms. Not only this, in the complaint, it was stated by the complainant that there was no development, at the site, and as such, the question of offering possession by the opposite parties, was a farce one. In the application for amendment, the complainant wanted to elucidate that even the opposite parties had not obtained completion and occupation certificates, as it was conceded by them, that GMADA had not yet issued them the same (completion certificate). In the prayer Clause, by way of amendment, the complainant wants to take an alternative plea. In our considered opinion, since the amendment sought for, is essential for just decision of the case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, if the same (amendment) is not allowed, it will cause a serious prejudice to the complainant. The Consumer Forums have been created as an alternative disputes redressal Forums. The nature of proceedings, before the Forums is summary. However, with a view to achieve speedy justice, all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, have not been made applicable to the summary proceedings, before the Consumer Forums. However, certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, as are contained in Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have been made applicable to the proceedings, before the said Forums. If the amendment is allowed, that would not change the nature of the case, nor would it introduce any new plea to the prejudice of the opposite parties. In our considered opinion, amendment sought for by the complainant, is essential for just decision of the case.