Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/239/2015

Vikas Goyal Director M/s Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amarjit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Kuthiala, Adv.

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.

:

239 of 2015

Date of Institution

:

21.09.2015

Date of Decision

:

23.09.2015

 

Vikas Goyal, Director M/s Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.2475-76, 2nd floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Amarjit Singh r/o House No.3307, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the appellant/ Opposite Party.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

(ORAL)

 

              Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing First Appeal No.239 of 2015, has been filed by the Counsel  for the appellant. 

2.           Heard.

3.           For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid is condoned.

4.           The application is disposed of accordingly.

5.           This filing of appeal against the order dated 13.07.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum) is nothing but an attempt to delay making payment to a poor buyer, who purchased a very small plot of 125 Sq. Yards from the appellant in the year 2011. It was his hope that he may construct his own house and live therein. His hope was shattered. Nothing was done, which compelled him to file a complaint before the Forum claiming refund of the amount paid. It is an admitted fact that total price of the plot was fixed at Rs.22.50 lacs. The respondent/complainant had paid the amount of Rs.11.25 lacs. At no time, an offer was made to him to give him possession of the plot, in dispute. Payment made is reflected in receipts placed on record before the Forum.

6.           When notice of the complaint was sent, Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel  for the appellant/Opposite Party puts in appearance on 28.04.2015 and 22.05.2015. However, Counsel  did not appear on 15.06.2015 and 25.06.2015. Having no option, exparte proceedings were ordered on the said date i.e. 25.06.2015 and the matter was adjourned further. It was ultimately heard on 13.07.2015 when impugned judgment was passed. Between 25.06.2015 to 13.07.2015 no attempt was made by the appellant/his Counsel  to move any application giving explanation for absence. It is apparent from record that dispite opportunities given, even reply was not filed.

7.           At the time of arguments, it is stated by the Counsel  for the appellant that the respondent/complainant had failed to make payment in time. In view of the above, he was not entitled to get possession of the plot. To support above contention, no document has been placed on record. Even with this appeal, to bring on record any document, application for additional evidence has not been filed.

8.           We have perused the order passed by the Forum. It is on record that possession was to be delivered by December, 2012. However, no effort was made to do so. The respondent/complainant even sent a legal notice claiming refund. However, he failed to get any answer. To claim refund is a continuous cause of action. In view of that, argument that the complaint should have been filed within two years from December, 2012 stands rejected.

9.           No further argument was raised.

10.         In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Opposite Party is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

11.         Certified copies of this order be also sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                         

September 23, 2015.                                     Sd/-

 

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 rb

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.