Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1510/2015

Sudesh Kumar s/o Brijesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aashiyana Green Wood Developers through Manager/Director - Opp.Party(s)

Yetendra Prakash Sharma

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1510 /2015

 

Sudesh Kumar s/o Brijesh Kumar & Smt.Anita Kumar w/o Sudesh Kumar r/o D-1020 Aashiyana Green Wood, Jagatpura, Jaipur

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Aashiyana Greenwood Developers ( partnership firm) 604 Apex Mall, 5^th floor, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Through Manager/Director & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 13.1.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Yatindra Prakash Sharma counsel for the appellants

 

2

 

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

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.11.2015 of the court below whereby the complaint has been accepted partially.

 

The short facts of the case are that the appellant booked a flat with the respondent and he paid all money till December 2009. An agreement has been entered between the parties on 18.11.2009. The possession of the flat was to be handed over till July 2009 but it was handed over to him very late but the court below has assessed his injury only for one month delay. He has been charged with higher amount of cost and store room has not been provided to him, hence his complaint should be allowed in toto.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the court below.

 

Ex.1 agreement entered between the parties clearly says that till October 2010 the possession of the flat was to be handed over to the appellant with grace period of six months. The

3

contention of the appellant is that after execution of Ex.1 the condition has been changed between the parties and a letter has been communicated to him but once Ex.1 bilateral agreement is entered between the parties the condition cannot be changed unilaterally and the court below has rightly relied upon agreement Ex.1 and rightly held that only one month delay is committed for the possession of the flat.

 

The court below has also held that there is no evidence to the effect that any store room has to be provided by the builder to the appellant and there is no narration of the same in Ex.1 hence, this contention is groundless.

 

Furthermore the dispute has been raised as about the cost of the flat. Admittedly Ex. A 1 sale deed has been executed between the parties voluntarily hence, dispute seems to be unnecessary and the court below has rightly ordered 12% interest on the cost of the flat for one month and no interference is needed. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm