NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/931/2017

PAWAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NARENDER YADAV, MR. AMARJEET SINGH, MR. VINEET YADAV & MR. ANAND PRAKASH

23 May 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 931 OF 2017
 
1. PAWAN KUMAR
S/o. Sh. Balwant Rai, R/o. H. No. 558, Sector - 7,
Panchkula - 134109
Haryana.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
Through Its Manager/Authorized Signatory/ Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing., SCO 190-191-192, Sector - 8 C,
Chandigarh - 160009
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate and
Mr. Priyash Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 23 May 2019
ORDER

ORAL
Heard.
Counsel for the parties submit that it is a covered case by the decision of this Commission in “First Appeal No.1340 of 2016, Vineet Kumar & Anr. Vs. M/s DLF Universal Limited & Anr.” and connected matters, which relate to the same project.  They have prayed that similar order be passed in the present case. 
It is not disputed that the possession of the subject plot which the Complainant had booked with the Opposite Party, was not delivered to him in time.  An offer of possession was made on 19.11.2014 by the Opposite Party.  Instead of taking possession, the Complainant has approached this Commission for refund.  The
-2-
Complainant, however, now requests that the Opposite Party be directed to give the possession of the subject plot to him and prays that similar directions as issued in Vineet Kumar’s case, which had been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Bhupinder Singh & Anr. Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.11505 of 2019”, be passed.  The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has not disputed that the case is a covered case.
Accordingly, following directions are issued:
(i) The Opposite Party is hereby directed to deliver the possession of the subject plot to the Complainant within one month from today along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. the committed date of possession till the date on which possession was actually offered to the allotee, i.e. 19.11.2014;
(ii) The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of ₹25,000/- to the Complainant as cost of litigation, if any;
(iii) Balance amount, if any, due from the Complainant shall be adjusted out of the deposit payable to him in terms of this order;
(iv) No interest for delayed payment on such an amount shall be payable by the allottee after the date on which the possession was offered.  This is so since                     no compensation to the allottee has been awarded for the period subsequent to the offer of possession.

The compensation, if any, which has already been paid/credited in the final statement of account of the Complainant shall be adjusted.  It is also agreed by the Opposite Party and that
-3-
They shall not charge any holding charges or the interest on the amount due under the final statement of account.
The present Complaint stands disposed of in these terms.

 
......................J
DEEPA SHARMA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
C. VISWANATH
MEMBER

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.