APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  31^st    MAY,  2016

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

These three appeals, as detailed in the heading above, have been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint no. 109/2015, 111/2015 and 112/2015, vide which, application for interim relief, filed by the complainants before the State Commission has been dismissed. 

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present appellants before this Commission, filed consumer complaint before the State Commission against the respondent/OP Godrej Properties Ltd., seeking directions to deliver possession of the flats in question, for which, they had made the booking after depositing sums at different intervals.  It was requested that possession of the flats should be delivered after curing defects in the flats and after completing common facilities like club house and to allot car parking slots etc.  It was also stated that interest should be awarded for the delay in delivery of possession.  The complainants also filed application for interim relief, stating that the OPs should be restrained from cancelling the allotments made to the complainants, because the balance of convenience was in their favour, having deposited various amounts from time to time.  It was also requested that common facilities like club house, swimming pool and gymnasium be also provided.  The State Commission passed the following order on 24.11.2015:-

        “Application for interim relief filed in (Consumer) Complaint no. 109/2015, 111/2015 and 112/2015 are hereby rejected.  Interim relief granted in favour of the complainant is hereby vacated.

        This order is passed in Complaint no. 109/2015.  It is ordered that certified copy of the order shall be placed on the record of Complaint no. 111/2015 and Complaint no. 112/2015.”

3.      The said order has been challenged by way of the appeals as stated above.

4.      During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the OPs were demanding an abnormally high interest from them, which was not justified by any standards.  According to the learned counsel, the OPs had demanded interest @ 95.14% p.a. vide their letter dated 22.03.2016.  The complainants were, however, willing to deposit the amount, as may be found due and payable by them on the delivery of the possession.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the OPs shall not charge interest more than 18% in any case.  He also stated that the action of the complainant in stopping the payment, on the ground that there were deficiencies in service, was not proper.

5.      On examination of the facts on record, it is made out that the appellants filed an application before the State Commission, seeking direction to them that they should not cancel the allotment of the flat and forfeit the earnest money, pending disposal of their consumer complaint.  It was stated that the OPs had threatened them that they shall cancel the said allotment, because of their failure to make payment in time.  The State Commission, vide impugned order, rejected the application for the said interim relief.  Although, they have discussed the merits of the case in the impugned order, but did not give their findings on the same.  It shall, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the State Commission should carry out a detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances on record and pass a final order in the case of the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 

6.      During the pendency of the consumer complaint, if any action like cancellation of the flats in question is taken by the OPs, it shall amount to a grave injustice to them.  It is ordered, therefore, that pending the disposal of the consumer complaint in question, the OPs are restrained from alienating the property in question and to create third party interest on the same.  The State Commission is also directed to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months after considering the submissions made by the parties and after giving them an opportunity to produce any further documents/evidence etc. on record.  With these directions, these three appeals are disposed of and the order of the State Commission in rejecting the application for interim relief is set aside.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 15.07.2016.