Haryana

StateCommission

A/226/2016

JAI KRISHAN ARTEC - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEETA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

PRASHANT VASHISTH

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     226 of 2016

Date of Institution:     16.03.2016

Date of Decision :      07.04.2016

 

M/s Jai Krishna Artec – J.V.8-B, Hansalya Building, 15 Barakhambha Road, Connaught Palace, New Delhi through its Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Geea Rani w/o Sarwar Singh, Resident of House No.259/6, Model Town, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Prashant Vashisth, Advocate for appellant.

             

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated December 11^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.240 of 2015.

2.      Geeta Rani-complainant/respondent, purchased plot No.B-204 from M/s Jai Krishna Artec-Opposite Party, in its project namely “Green Wood City” at Sector 26-27, Sonipat in 2006. The price of the plot was Rs.25,89,125/- which included External Development Charges (for short ‘EDC’) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) etc. The complainant paid Rs.25,11,638/-. The opposite party did not deliver possession of the plot. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking interest for the delayed period of possession and compensation etc.

3.      The opposite party despite notice, did not contest the complaint and was proceeded expate.

4.      On appraisal of the evidence of the complainant, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite party as under:-

“…the respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.18,51,498/- to the complainant from 05.12.2013 and to hand over the possession of the plot to the complainant. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part f the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to th tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

5.      Indisputably, the plot was booked with the opposite party/appellant in the year 2006. She paid 95% price of the plot but the possession was not delivered. The District Forum has chosen the date 05.12.2013, taking into consideration reasonable period for development of plot. In the considered opinion of this Commission, the order passed by the District Forum is justified. No case for interference is made out.

6.      Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 07.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL