Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/137/2017

Gautam Bhalla Managing Director Vatika Landbanse - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnal Dinesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

D.M.Mathur

03 Aug 2017

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 137/2017

 

Sh.Gautam Bhalla, Managing Director, Vatika Landbase, 7^th floor, Vatika Triangle, Sushantlok, Phase I, Block -A, Mahroli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Haryana & ors.

Vs.

Col. Dinesh Kumar 95/2 Church Road, Officers Enclave, Ghorpari, Pune Camp.

 

 

Date of Order 3.8. 2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr.D.M. Mathur counsel for the appellants

Mr.Akhilesh Jain counsel for the respondent

 

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

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 3.1.2017 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant for refund of penalty and holding charges.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per condition no. 10.2 of the agreement a written notice was served on the respondent and as per condition no. 10.3 he was entitled to charge penalty and holding charges hence, the claim should have been disallowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that no notice was ever served to him and further more the appellant was not having certification for occupation and use and in absence of that he was not competent to give notice of possession and the Forum below has rightly ordered for refund of the amount and appeal should have been dismissed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the parties entered

 

3

 

into agreement. Property was booked and now possession has been handed over to the respondent and also registration has been executed in favour of the respondent but the dispute between the parties is regarding charging of penalty and holding charges.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he served a notice as provided under condition no. 10.2 but no such notice was submitted before the Forum below. Now in appeal a letter dated 10.12.2010 Anx. A 1 has been submitted to show that notice of possession was served on the respondent but there is no evidence of the service of above notice. Before the Forum below down payment plan has been submitted but notice Anx. A 1 has not been submitted and no reason has been assigned for non-submission of the document before the Forum below. Further more the appellant has not submitted any evidence to the effect that Ex. A 1 was ever send to the respondent. Apart from this as per condition no. 10.2 service of notice was only competent after obtaining of certificate for occupation by the appellant but occupation certificate has not been submitted before the Forum below or before this Commission and the counsel for the appellant inspite of query could not show the

 

4

 

certificate of occupation and use and even could not disclose the date of receipt of the above certificate. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that the appellants are not entitled to charge penalty and holding charges.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that when possession has been handed over to the respondent and registration has also been executed, now the objection as regard to holding charges and penalty are not sustainable and reliance has been placed on II (2013) CPJ 376 (NC) K.N.Kandpal Vs. Alliance Builders & Constructions Ltd. and IV (2006) CPJ 123 (NC) Yashbir Jaggi Vs. Unitech Ltd.

 

In both the above citations the complaint was as regard to inferior and cheap construction and for maintenance charges which is not the case here. Further the respondent has submitted written objection prior to the registration of the property which has not been denied by the appellant and the Forum below has also considered the same Ex. Da . Hence, in view of the above the contention of the appellant is not sustainable.

 

 

5

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm