E-Paper
Punjab consumer commission fines builder ₹1 lakh for forum shopping
Zirakpur-based builder had approached both the Punjab and Haryana high court and the Mohali District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for a stay on recovery of external development charges, and got relief from the latter
Finding a realty firm guilty of approaching the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission despite its plea already pending before the Punjab and Haryana high court, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, has imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on it.
Penalising the firm, Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Limited, Zirakpur, for “forum shopping”, the state commission also cast aspersions on the functioning of the district consumer commission for ordering a stay on the recovery of external development charges (EDC) from the firm by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
Forum shopping refers to the illegal practice of having a case heard in multiple courts in hopes of a favourable judgment.
The state commission’s order came on a revision petition filed by GMADA through its counsel Shekhar Verma.GMADA had submitted before the state commission that the developer had defaulted on payment of EDC worth several crores despite numerous reminders, thus, hampering the completion of external development works.
The builder had approached the high court challenging the EDC recovery, but the high court had not granted the firm any interim relief and the writ petition was still pending.
Despite this, without disclosing the pendency of the writ petition, the firm filed an application before the district consumer commission for a stay on the recovery of EDC via a consumer complaint filed by one of its allottees.
On February 25, the district commission allowed the stay, which was challenged by GMADA before the state commission.
Disposing of the complaint, the state commission stated that the district consumer commission had no jurisdiction to entertain such application, yet it proceeded to stay the recovery of EDC from the builder, despite the fact that GMADA had apprised it of the correct facts. The district commission ignored the reply filed by GMADA on frivolous grounds, the order stated.
While fining the builder ₹1 lakh, the state commission said, “We are of the considered view that the impugned order, dated February 25, 2022, passed by the district commission is totally vague, irrelevant, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, without any application of mind and without any basis and has been passed by ignoring the pendency of the case before the high court, which has been filed by the builder seeking the same relief.”
The fine has to be deposited in the PGIMER Poor Patients’ Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the amount will be recovered as land revenue arrears.
