Bhagat Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neeta Malhotra Through Her Power-of-attorney Shri Bharat Dutta - Court Judgment

Honble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President

Heard Adv. R. B. Jain proxy advocate for Legal Juris on behalf of the Appellant and Adv. Nagaraj Hoskeri on behalf of the Respondent.

[2]  This appeal filed by the Appellant/Opponent No.1 takes an exception to an order dated 30/6/2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.194 of 2008. By this order the Appellant/Opponent No.1 was directed to execute the conveyance deed in respect of Shop No.25 in favour of the Respondent/Complainant and to hand-over possession of the shop to the Respondent/Complainant. Appellant/Opponent No.1 was further directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant an amount of `45,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Respondent/Complainant besides costs of `5,000/-. Said order was directed to be complied with within a period of 45 days. If the amount was not paid within the stipulated period of 45 days the Appellant/Opponent No.1 was directed to pay the amounts, as ordered together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. Being aggrieved by the order, the Appellant/Opponent No.1 filed this appeal.

[3]  On perusal of the original consumer complaint we find that the Respondent/Complainant had impleaded Bhagat Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., as the Opponent No.1. Opponent No.1-A is another address of the Opponent No.1. Opponent No.2 was Mr. Dilip Kapoor, Director, Bhagat and Kapoor Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Opponent No.3 was Bhagat and Kapoor Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. However, in the present appeal we find that original Opponents Nos.2 and 3 have not been impleaded as the parties to this appeal and only the Complainant, namely – Smt. Neeta Malhotra has been impleaded in the appeal as a Respondent. In fact, while filing present appeal it was obligatory on the part of the Appellant/Opponent No.1 to implead the parties as appearing in the cause-title of the consumer complaint. Thereafter, an application for deletion of parties has got to be sanctioned from the Commission. This procedure has not been followed and, therefore, filing of the present appeal itself is defective.

[4]  Apart from that both the learned advocates inform this Commission that during the pendency of this appeal possession of the Shop No.25 has been handed over to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/Opponent No.1 and thus, the Respondent/Complainant is put into possession of the property and similarly conveyance has been executed. In these circumstances, the order under challenge has already been satisfied by amicable settlement between the parties. Since the parties have settled the dispute and arrived at a certain conclusion and since the Respondent/Complainant has been put into possession of the property and since the conveyance has been executed now, the grievance of the Respondent/Complainant does not survive for our consideration. So far as grievance of the Appellant/Opponent No.1 is concerned, the Appellant/Opponent No.1 is trying to raise a question that the premises in respect of which the consumer complaint has been filed is the commercial premises and such, consumer complaint is not tenable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, this question which has been raised has rendered an academic question in view of amicable settlement reached between the parties. It is settled principle of law that the Courts, Tribunals or Fora shall not settle academic question and, therefore, we refuse to enter into that aspect of the matter as to whether the complaint is maintainable being in respect of commercial premises. We find that nothing survives in this appeal. Under these circumstances the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.