PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

Aggrieved by the orders dated 02.06.2006 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No. C-150/03 and C-151/03, the opposite party-builder has filed these appeals. 

2.         After the trial of the complaints, the State Commission, vide the impugned orders partly allowed the complaints only on the limited question of holding charges which, according to the complainants the builder could not have charged.  Therefore, the State Commission directed the Builder to refund the holding charges from a particular period.

3.         The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaints have been amply noted in the orders of the State Commission and need no repetition at our end.  We have heard Mr. H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-Builder and Mr. Jayant Nath, Senior Advocate for the respondents – complainants and have considered their submissions.  From a perusal of the material brought on record, it is amply clear that the builder itself reduced the holding charges levied by it which the complainants readily deposited without any protest and, thereafter, possession of the commercial space(s) was handed over to the complainants.  With this position , the complainants were not justified in raking up any dispute, much less the kind of disputes it raised before the State Commission in their complaints.  Once the builder, on the representation made by the complainants, had waived off the holding charges to the extent of Rs.3,96,790/- in Appeal No. 435/2006 and Rs.1,23,750 in Appeal No. 436/06, the complainants ought to have felt contended and should not have agitated the matter  any further.   The State Commission committed an error of fact by over-looking the above-noted position while ordering the refund of the holding charges.  The orders are legally unsustainable and are hereby set aside.  The appeals are allowed. 

4.         Counsel for the respondent – complainant has made a grievance that despite all things having been formalized and completed, still till date, the appellant – builder has not executed the conveyance deed in respect of the property in question. Mr. Tiku fairly states that in case this is the factual position, the appellant would have no objection to execute the conveyance deed at the cost of the complainant – respondent.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

5.         On request of Mr. Tiku, we direct the Registry to refund whatever amount has been deposited by the appellant alongwith accrued interest thereon to the appellant.