Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. The aforesaid eighteen Transfer Applications, have been filed by the applicants/complainants, for the transfer of Consumer Complaint Cases, referred to above, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, [(hereinafter to be referred as District Forum (II) and District Forum (I) respectively)].
2. The complaints, aforesaid, filed by the applicants/ complainants, with regard to the deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties/non-applicants, on account of delay, in handing over possession, as also defective and incomplete construction of flats, were dismissed by District Forum (II), vide order dated 29.06.2009, by District Forum-II. The appeals against the order dated 29.06.2009 were filed, in this Commission, which were allowed, vide order dated 09.04.2010, and the complaints were remanded back. It was stated that, in paragraph number 18 of the order dated 09.04.2010, passed by this Commission, it was held that the application for appointment of Local Commissioner, deserved to be allowed. It was further stated that despite such directions, having been given by this Commission, in the order dated 09.04.2010, the application for Local Commissioner was dismissed by the District Forum. It was further stated that, on 17.01.2014, the applicants/complainants were threatened by the Members of District Forum-II, that, in case, they did not enter into compromise with the Society/Opposite Party No.1, the complaints would be dismissed. It was further stated that, as such, District Forum-II, has already made up its mind, to dismiss the complaints, and it would be a futile exercise to address the arguments, before it. It was further stated that the complaints were instituted, in the year 2008, and more than fifty times, the same (complaints) were adjourned, after having been remanded, but the same have not been decided by District Forum-II, till date. It was further stated that, on account of these reasons, the applicants/complainants do not expect free and fair justice, from District Forum-II. Accordingly, the prayer, referred to above, was made in all the complaints.
3. We have heard Sh. S.K. Sharma and Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Authorized Representatives, on behalf of the applicants/ complainants, and have gone through the record of the complaint cases, received from District Forum-II, carefully.
4. It is settled principle of law, that a case from one Forum, to another Forum, can only be transferred, if there are legal and valid grounds, for doing so. Mere fanciful apprehension, in the mind of the applicants, that they will not get justice, from a particular Forum, where the matter was pending, could not be taken, as a sufficient ground, to transfer the matter/case, from one Forum to another Forum. Transfer of a case from one Forum to another Forum, indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the President and the Members thereof. Mere presumptions or possible apprehensions, do not constitute sufficient grounds, for transfer of a case. Transfer could be made, if there are good and sufficient grounds, clearly set out in the petition.
5. The first grievance of the applicants/ complainants, set up in the applications, referred to above, is to the effect that the appeals against the common order dated 29.06.2009, vide which the complaints were finally decided, by the District Forum, were filed. The said appeals were accepted by this Commission, and the complaints were remanded back, with clear-cut directions to District Forum-II, to appoint a Local Commissioner, but instead of complying with the said order, it (District Forum-II), dismissed the application for the said purpose, which fact was sufficient to entertain a doubt that fair justice will not be dispensed to the applicants/complainants. It may be stated here, that the Consumer Complaints, referred to above, were filed in the year 2008. Alongwith the complaints, the applications for appointment of a Local Commissioner, were also filed by the complainants. Though, inadvertently, those applications could not be decided, by District Forum-II, at the time of final disposal of the complaints, vide order 29.06.2009. Later on, after the remand of the complaints, on 02.09.2011, the Counsel for the complainants, made statements, withdrawing the applications, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. Later on, again the complainants filed applications dated 14.11.2011, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner, in the complaints. After hearing the Counsel for the complainants, Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 the Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party No.3, and, on going through the record, the District Forum, dismissed the applications, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner, vide order dated 05.03.2012, by recording cogent reasons. The perusal of the order dated 09.04.2010, does not at all indicate that any direction was given to District Forum-II, that the Local Commissioner should be appointed by it (District Forum-II), in pursuance of the applications, filed by the applicants/complainants, for the said purpose. The order dated 09.04.2010, passed by this Commission, in the appeals, against the common order dated 29.06.2009, is to be read as a whole. No doubt, some observations were made by this Commission, in the order dated 09.04.2010 that a qualified Local Commissioner would have been the right person to assist District Forum-II, in arriving at a logical and fair conclusion, in deciding the issue, with regard to the defects and drawbacks, in the flats. It was also observed by this Commission in the order dated 09.04.2010 that in its opinion, the request of the complainants for the appointment of a Local Commissioner, at their cost, should have been conceded to by it (District Forum-II). However, the concluding paragraph number 19 of the order dated 09.04.2010, vide which the appeals were accepted and the complaints were remanded back to District Forum-II, by this Commission, reads as under:-
œIn view of the foregoing discussion, we find merit in the prayer of the appellants that the complaint cases be remanded back to the learned District Forum. Consequently, all the appeals bearing No.408 to 427 all of 2009 are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside and the respective complaint cases are remanded back to the learned District Forum for deciding afresh, after giving due consideration to the application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner filed by the complainants and also after giving due opportunities to both the sides to bring on record any other relevant documents/ evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum concerned on 26.4.2010?.
6. It is evident, from the afore-extracted paragraph number 19 of the order dated 09.04.2010, passed by this Commission, that the complaint cases were remanded back to District Forum-II, by accepting all the appeals and setting aside the common order dated 29.06.2009. District Forum-II was directed to decide the cases, after giving due consideration to the applications, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner, filed by the complainants, as also after giving due opportunities to the parties, to bring on record, any other relevant documents/evidence. In our considered opinion, no specific direction was given to District Forum II, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, only directed District Forum II, to decide the applications, filed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. From such a direction, it could not be deduced that District Forum II was bound to appoint a Local Commissioner. Since the applications dated 14.11.2011, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner were dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 05.03.2012, if the applicants/ complainants had any grouse against the said order (05.03.2012), they were at liberty to file a Revision Petition, before this Commission. They, however, did not do so. The order dated 05.03.2012, has, thus attained finality and cannot be reopened in these proceedings. This ground taken up by the applicants/ complainants, for the transfer of complaints, therefore, being devoid of any substance, is rejected.
7. The second grievance of the applicants/ complainants, set up in the applications, referred to above, is that the Members of District Forum-II, forced them to enter into a compromise with respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, and, as such, they did not expect the dispensation of fair justice, by the said Forum. The perusal of the complaint files, clearly goes to show that, on none of the dates of hearing, the complainants/applicants were present, before the District Forum. Perusal of the short orders/Zimini Orders, recorded by the District Forum, in the complaints, clearly goes to show that only the Counsel for the complainants, put in appearance. There is no affidavit of the Counsel for the applicants/complainants, to the effect that the Members of the District Forum, forced the complainants to enter into a compromise, with respondent no.1/ Opposite Party No.1. Even, in none of the short orders/Zimini Orders, there is any mention that the complainants were even asked by the Members of District Forum-II, to enter into a compromise, with respondent no.1/Opposite Party No.1, what to speak of forcing them. Had such an event happened, then the same would have certainly been recorded, in the short orders/Zimini Orders. Even if, it assumed for the sake of arguments that the parties were asked to enter into an amicable settlement of the dispute, the same was permitted by law. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Chapter IV-A, Lok Adalats can be held by the District Forums, as also the Commission, with a view, to prevail upon the parties, to enter into an amicable settlement. Even the Lok Adalats are held by the District Forums and this Commission, on a particular day, every week, for amicable settlement of the Consumer Disputes, by prevailing upon the parties, and if such disputes are not amicably settled, then the files are sent back to the regular stream for decision, on merits, after affording opportunity to the parties of being heard. Such a ground was apparently taken up by the applicants/ complainants, for some undisclosed reasons, with a view to cast doubt, on the competence and integrity of the Members of District Forum-II. There is nothing, on the record, that the applicants/ complainants, shall not be dispensed fair and impartial justice, in the matter of decision of the complaints. The ground, referred to, in this paragraph, being vague and not supported by any of the short orders/Zimini Orders, recorded by the District Forum, in the complaint files, being devoid of substance, is also rejected.
8. The third ground, set up by the applicants/ complainants, in the applications, referred to above, is to the effect that the complaints were filed in the year 2008, which were decided by the District Forum vide order dated 29.06.2009, the appeals against which were accepted on 09.04.2010, but even after the remand of the cases, though a period of about more than three and a half years, has lapsed, yet the same (complaints) had not been finally decided. To buttress this ground, it was also stated that about fifty adjournments were granted, after the remand of the complaints, but no progress has been achieved therein, till date. This grievance of the applicants/complainants appears to be correct, and is also supported by the record. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, every endeavour should be made to decide the complaint within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). The District Forum was required to adhere to the aforesaid provisions of the Act. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation, which provides for inexpensive and speedy disposal of the grievances of the consumers. Had these provisions been strictly adhered to by District Forum-II, it would have certainly decided the complaints, within the period stipulated, under the Act. However, the mere fact that the complaints have not been decided for a period of about more than three years, after the remand of the same, in itself, could not be said to be a sufficient ground, to transfer the same to District Forum-I. If the complaints are transferred to District Forum-I, then certainly further delay, in the disposal of the same, would be caused. However, directions can be given to District Forum-II, to finally dispose of the complaints, on merits, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, within a period of one month, from 20.02.2014. If any of the Counsel for the parties, failed to address the oral arguments, then the written submission could be filed and entertained, as envisaged by Regulation 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. Redressal of the grievance of the applicants/complainants, therefore, does not lie, in the transfer of complaints, but only in the disposal thereof, expeditiously. The said ground, therefore, cannot be said to be sufficient, to transfer the complaints, from District Forum-II to District Forum-I, and, as such, stands rejected.
9. No legal, valid, reasonable and justified grounds exist, for transfer of the complaint cases, from District Forum (II) to District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh. The applications, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the applications, under disposal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stand dismissed, with no order as to costs.
11. District Forum-II, is directed to finally dispose of all the complaints, on merits, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, within one month, from 20.02.2014. The President, District Forum II, shall ensure that the directions are complied with, in letter and spirit.
12. The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum-II, on 20.02.2014, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
13. The District Forum records, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 20.02.2014, at 10.30 A.M.
14. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. These observations are only limited, for the decision of transfer of applications.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. Certified copy of this order shall be placed, in each of the remaining Transfer Application files.
17. The Transfer Application files, be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.