Delhi

StateCommission

FA/165/2014

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH KR. MAHAJAN - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 26.09.2016

 

First Appeal- 165/2014

 

(Arising out of the order dated 06.01.2014 passed in Complainant Case No.1417/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi)

M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

15, UGF, Indraprakash,

21, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

 

….Appellant

Versus

Shri Jagdish Kumar Mahajan,

Through Joginder nath Puri,

Authorised Attorney,

KH-22, Kavi Nagar,

Ghaziabad-201001.

      ….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 6.1.14 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in CC No.1417/2009 whereby the Ld. District Forum has quashed the demand of balance amount of Rs.53,583/- and interest thereon and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- in favour of respondent/complainant.
2. A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the District Forum”) was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had paid Rs.2,04,100/- to the appellant/OP on cash down payment for Flat No.(17-F) 128, Sector-10, Charanjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad under Plan ‘C’ and as per him, full payment of unit was paid by him.  It was alleged that apart from making full payment, the appellant/OP had raised an illegal demand of Rs.53,583/- towards interest and balance payment on respondent/complainant.  The prayer was made for quashing of the alleged demand and handing over the possession of the flat in question.
3. Appellant/OP had filed written statement wherein it was alleged that the demand was raised as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 20.08.1992.  It was alleged that false case was filed by respondent/complainant.  It was further alleged that vide settlement deed dated 22.10.2012, the possession had already been delivered by the appellant/OP to the respondent/complainant.  It was alleged that demand for balance amount was rightly raised by the appellant/OP and complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties led evidence in the form of affidavits. 
5. On 6.1.14, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order quashing the demand of Rs.53,583/- raised by it and also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- in favour of respondent/complainant.
6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide order dated 26.4.2013, the Ld. District Forum had directed the respondent/complainant to pay a sum of Rs.53,583/-  to the appellant/OP and it was directed that the balance dues as per letter dated 17.3.04 be given within 60 days.  It is contended that in the final order, the court has quashed the demand by holding that the new rates cannot be demanded in 2004 once the payment is accepted in 1992.  It is contended that by doing so, the District Forum has reviewed its earlier order.  It is contended that Ld. District Forum has no power to review its own order.
7. We have gone through the order dated 26.4.2013 as well as the impugned order dated 6.1.14.  Both are contradictory orders.  No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant to assist us.  The order dated 26.4.13 reads as under:
   1.  

 

Pr. Complainant in person.

Pr. Mr. Anil Kumar, Counsel for OP.

 

Counsel for OP stated that the dues on unit on 17.3.04 were Rs.53,583/- as per annexure-C of the complainant.  OP also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- for rectification of the unit in question, through cheque and the complainant has spent himself on unit.  The possession of the flat is already given to the complainant.  Now complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.53,583/-.  The balance dues, as per letter dated 17.3.04, be given to OP within 60 days.  Complainant is also directed to file a statement of account reg. unit in question.  Complainant for total sale consideration price has also filed an application.  Copy given.  Fix up for 8.8.13.”

 

8. In the aforesaid order, the respondent/complainant has been ordered to pay Rs.53,583/- within 60 days while in the order dated 6.1.14, it has been held that demand of Rs.53,583/- is illegal.  Nothing is mentioned about aforesaid order in the impugned order.
9. In these circumstances, we accept this appeal and set aside the order dated 6.1.14 and direct the Ld. District Forum to rehear the parties and thereafter pass a fresh order in this case.
10. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 3.11.16.
11. The District Forum shall decide the same within 3 months of the receipt of this order.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member