Consumer Commission Enforces Refund, Rejects Late Amendment for Possession.


27 November 2024 Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent consumer dispute of Tarun Goel & Anr. Vs M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Director/Md), New Delhi , the Consumer Commission has dismissed an application for amendment filed by complainants seeking to alter the fundamental nature of their original complaint. The case, involving a real estate dispute concerning a residential plot in Omaxe Chandigarh Extension, saw the complainants initially seeking a refund of their deposited amount, along with interest and compensation. However, after several years and the completion of pleadings and evidence, they filed an application to add an alternative prayer for possession of the plot.

The original complaint, filed in 2017, requested the opposite party (OP) to refund Rs. 1,12,67,649, along with 24% interest and compensation for damages and litigation expenses. The amendment application, filed in February 2024, sought to add prayers for the physical handover of the plot, execution of the sale deed, and interest on the deposited amount from June 2015 until possession.


 

 

The OP vehemently opposed the amendment, arguing that it fundamentally altered the nature of the complaint and would cause irreparable prejudice. They contended that introducing a new prayer for possession at such a late stage, after the completion of pleadings and evidence, amounted to substituting a new cause of action, which is against established legal principles. The OP cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that amendments should not change the core subject matter of the suit or cause undue prejudice.

During the hearing, the OP's counsel offered a significant concession, stating that their client was willing to refund the entire principal amount paid by the complainants, along with a reasonable rate of interest as determined by the Commission. This undertaking addressed the primary prayer of the original complaint.

The Consumer Commission, after reviewing the original complaint, the proposed amendments, and the arguments from both sides, concluded that the amendment application could not be allowed. They reasoned that even with the amendment, the primary prayer for a refund would remain, and the OP's willingness to comply with this rendered the amendment unnecessary.

Consequently, the Commission dismissed the amendment application and directed the OP to refund the principal amount of Rs. 52,79,429, along with a simple interest of 9% per annum, within 45 days. Additionally, the OP was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as litigation costs. Failure to comply within the stipulated time would result in an increased interest rate of 12% per annum from the 46th day until the date of actual payment.

The Commission's decision effectively disposed of the original complaint, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original cause of action and preventing undue prejudice to the opposing party, while ensuring the complainants receive their due refund.