Haryana

StateCommission

A/786/2016

SUNITA GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     786 of 2016

Date of Institution:     29.08.2016

Date of Decision :     14.12.2016

 

Smt. Sunita Goyal w/o Sh. Dhanvir Goyal, Resident of House No.965, Sector 7-C, Faridabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s BPTP Limited, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

2.      M/s Business Park Maintenance Services Private Limited, M-11, Middle Circle Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

3.      M/s BPTP Limited, Site Office, Sector-85, Faridabad through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman/Manager etc.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   This appeal was received by post. Notice was issued to the appellant and in response thereto, the appellant expressed her inability to come in person and sent her written submission vide letter (Annexure-A).

2.                Sunita Goyal-Complainant, was allotted plot No.E-26/01, measuring 334 square yards in the project of opposite parties namely Parkland BPTP, Sector-85, Faridabad. She deposited Rs.66,800/- with the opposite party No.2 as Interest Bearing Maintenance Security (IBMS) on 9^th July, 2010 in addition to cost of plot. The grievance of the complainant was that the opposite parties did not pay any interest on the amount of IBMS. Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.                The opposite parties contested the complaint raising plea that all the disputes between the parties had been amicably settled before Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 12^th March, 2014 and thus nothing was payable by them to the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated August 2^nd, 2016 allowed the complaint and the opposite party No.1 was directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.66,800/-, that is, the interest Bearing Maintenance Security, from the date of deposit besides compensation of Rs.2100/- and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.     

5.                Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6.                The compensation is always co-related with the quantum of claim and amount involved. The complainant has only sought interest on the amount of (IBMS), that is, Rs.66,800/-.

7.                Considering that no rate of interest was mentioned to be payable by the opposite parties, the complainant has already been granted adequate compensation. No case for enhancement of compensation is made out.

8.                Hence the appeal fails. It is dismissed. 

 

Announced 14.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL