w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Vilas Sharma & Others v/s M/s. Gold Souk Infrastructures Private Limited & Another

    Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2021 In Cc/421 of 2018

    Decided On, 17 June 2021

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: Nithin Chandran, Advocate.



Judgment Text

MA/94/2021

This Application has been filed by two persons, namely, Vineet Tandon and his wife Kiran Bhatia, seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Grant similar relief, which was granted to the Complainants vide Order dated 04.03.2021 in Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 2018 titled Ram Vilas Sharma and 23 Ors. V. M/s Goldsouk Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr., and direct the Opposite Party(s) for an immediate 100% refund of the total amount of Rs.23,45,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three lakh and Forty Five Thousand Only) paid by the Applicants along with the compensation in the form of interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of each payment till the date the entire amount is refunded along with compensation.

ii. That any other and further relief in favour of the Applicants as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

It is not in dispute that Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 2018 (Ram Vilas Sharma & 23 Ors. Vs. M/s Gold Souk Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) was decided on 04.03.2021, wherein certain reliefs were granted. The Complaint was filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act”). The Applicants herein were not parties in the Consumer Complaint. However, as Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 2018 has been decided under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act, the Order, which has been passed on 04.03.2021 in the aforesaid Consumer Complaint, was also applicable to the present Applicants because the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been made applicable. They can take the benefit.

The Application for getting the similar relief is not maintainable and is, accordingly, rejected with the aforesaid observations.

IA/3816/2021 & IA/3860/2021

While IA No. 3816 of 2021 has been filed by four Applicants, namely, Anupama Kakkar Jolly, Arun Pathak, Smita Agrawal and Tapoprakash Sarkar, IA No. 3860 of 2021 has been filed by two Applicants, namely, Arun Pathak and Tapoprakash Sarkar. In both the Applications, the Applicants seek modification of the Order dated 04.03.2021, passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 2018 vis--vis amount deposited by them.

We have perused the averments made in the Applications.

Insofar as Applicant No.3 in IA No.3816 of 2021, namely, Smit Agrawal, is concerned, the amount deposited by her is correctly stated in the Order dated 04.03.2021. Therefore, the Applications are confined to the remaining three Applicants, namely, Anupama Kakkar Jolly, Arun Pathak and Tapoprakash Sarkar.

Out of the remaining three Applicants, in respect of two Applicants, namely, Arun Pathak and Tapoprakash Sarkar, the modification is sought in both the Applications. However, we find that while the amount stated to have been deposited by Arun Pathak is Rs.27,50,000/- in both the Applications, the amount stated to have been deposited by Tapoprakash Sarkar is different in both the Applications. In IA No. 3816 of 2021, filed on 03.05.2021, the amount stated to have been deposited by Tapoprakash Sarkar is Rs.17,86,500/- whereas in IA No. 3860 of 2021, filed on 11.06.2021, the amount stated to have been deposited by the said Applicant is Rs.17,80,500/-. In this view of the matter, we are taking the amount of Rs.17,80,500/- as stated in the latter Application as correct.

Accordingly, the amount deposited by the Applicants, namely, Anupama Kakkar Jolly, Arun Pathak and Tapoprakash Sarkar shall be read as Rs.24,45,800/-, Rs.27,50,000/- and Rs.17,80,500/- respectively in the Order dated 04.03.2021 instead of the amount of Rs.20,61,785/-, Rs.22,26,860/- and Rs.8,72,500/- respectively, as initially stated in the Order dated 04.0

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

3.2021. Both the Applications are allowed. IA/3859/2021 & IA/3861/2021 No Orders are required to be passed on these Applications, which have been filed by the Applicants, seeking exemption from filing the notarized affidavit in IA/3816/2021 and IA/3860/2021, as the Orders have already been passed in IA/3816/2021 and IA/3860/2021. Accordingly, the Applications stand disposed of.
O R