National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Maninder Singh Grewal Vs. Conscient Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

MANU/CF/0165/2019

29.03.2019

Consumer

A person approaching Court for redressal of grievance must place all relevant facts before Court clearly without any reservation even if those facts were against him

In Complaint case, it was stated that, Appellant/Complainant booked two units in Block-C in Commercial Complex project named "Conscient One" which was to come up at Gurgaon (Haryana) from the Respondents/Opposite Parties. With no hope of getting the units on time, the Appellant sent a legal notice for cancellation of booking and refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest @18% per annum but with no response from the Respondents. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

The State Commission, vide order, dismissed the Complaint at admission stage on the ground that, the Appellant had himself mentioned that, the Agreement provided for delivery of possession within 42 months with grace period of six months from date of execution of the Agreement. The Agreement bears the date 24th August, 2015. Hence, the Appellant cannot seek possession before 24th August, 2019. The Complaint filed in 2016 was premature.

In BTM Industries Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, in which this Commission held that, it is settled proposition of law that a person approaching the Court for redressal of his grievance must place all the relevant facts before the Court clearly, candidly and frankly without any reservation even if those facts were against him. If the person approaching the Court does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in distorted manner or otherwise tries to mislead the Court, the Court has inherent power to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. The Court/Tribunal certainly has to take into consideration the conduct of the party which invokes its jurisdiction and if it finds that the litigant tried to mislead or hoodwink, it must necessarily prevent him from abusing its process by refusing to hear him on merits of the case. Such a person, by his very conduct, disentitles himself from getting any relief from the court even if it is otherwise made out on merits.

In Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., this Commission held that, since the Complainant/Appellant did not approach the State Commission with clean hands and rather tried to mislead it, it is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

The State Commission has clearly stated in its order that, agreement executed between the parties itself provided for delivery of possession within 42 months with grace period of six months from date of execution of agreement i.e. from the date of 24th August, 2015. The Appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the Agreement was signed under duress.

The Appellant should wait till 24th August, 2019. If the Respondents do not handover the possession of both the units by then, cause of action would arise for filing a case before an appropriate Court/Fora. The First Appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is affirmed.

Relevant

BTM Industries Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MANU/CF/0008/2016
; M/s. Sri Sarbati Steel Tubes Limited vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/CF/0686/2013

Tags : Execution Agreement Possession delivery

Share :