Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/526/2018

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jitendra Kumar Sharma s/o Lat. Brijmohan Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Sumer Saini

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 526 /2018

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., 304 A 305 3^rd floor, Sangam Tower, Church Road, M.I.Road, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Jitendra Kumar Sharma s/o late Brijhmohan Sharma c/o K.L.Sharma r/o 7 Chha 27, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur .

 

Date of Order 13.8.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Ganesh Sahu counsel for appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal is filed against the order dated 12.6.2018 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd whereby the claim is

 

2

 

allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 8 days. Looking at the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that holding and maintenance is charged as the possession of the property was offered to the complainant earlier but the complainant respondent was not ready to have the possession. Covered parking is also offered to the complainant respondent. Hence, no deficiency could be attributed to the appellant.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

 

As per the judgment of the Forum below possession letter was issued on 6.5.2016 and on the very day holding and maintenance charges were demanded which were deposited by the complainant respondent. When possession of the property was offered and given to the complainant respondent on 6.5.2016, maintenance and holding charges could not be recovered prior to it and the Forum below has rightly held so.

3

 

It is not in dispute that parking charges of Rs. 10,000/- were deposited by the complainant respondent inspite of this parking facility has not been given to the respondent. This is not the contention of the appellant that any parking facility is given to the respondent and no such document has been submitted to prove the same.

 

In view of the above, the Forum below has rightly held the appellant deficient and the claim has rightly been passed. There is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm