Mr. Rohit Tanwar, counsel for Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, counsel for the applicants-complainants.

                   Mr. Himanshu Monga, counsel for Mr. Hemant Saini, counsel for opposite parties.

                   M.A. No. 287 of 2024 has been filed in registry of this Commission on 23.04.2024. It has been put up for today, as M.A. No.20 of 2023 is still pending consideration and same is fixed for today for that purpose. Mr. Himanshu Monga, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties has suffered following statement.

 I am withdrawing M.A. No.287 of 2024 because this MA has been filed concerning Avalon Rosewood (Bhiwadi) Rajsathan, the project in the instant complaint is of name, Avalon Rangoli, Dharuhera. I will file appropriate application in due course, concerning project involved in this complaint.

2.                In wake of above statement of learned counsel, M.A. No.287 of 2024 stands disposed of, having become infructuous. Liberty is granted to OPs to file appropriate application at any time, hence-after. 

 3.               Through, Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 20 of 2023 filed under Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, read with section 152 CPC, applicant-complainant has sought review/modification or order dated 20.11.2022, vide which Complaint Case No.429 of 2017 has been accepted. It is pleaded therein that complainant was pressurized to make payment of Rs.1,78,499/- through demand letters dated 29.07.2021 & 09.10.2021- Annexure A-3 & Annexure-A-4. Being a layman, complainant acceded to coercive demand of OPs and made payment of Rs.1,78,499/- through cheque dated 05.07.2022, vide receipt dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure A-5), which has escaped consideration of this Commission and it has not directed refund of amount of Rs.1,78,499/- along with refund of earlier paid amount of Rs.34,05,629/-, in  its judgment dated 20.11.2022.

4.                In reply to the application, it is pleaded that application is liable to be dismissed. There is no error apparent on the face of record and Section 50 is not attracted. Demand Letters dated 29.07.2021 & 09.10.2021 along with receipt dated 07.07.2022 are not part of pleadings.  Application is delayed, so filed after 128 days, against statutory period of 30 days.  Other contents of the application have been denied.

5.                Learned counsel appearing for both parties, have raised their submissions strictly as per plea taken in the application (MA No.20 of 2023) and corresponding reply.

6.                There is no denying fact that demand letters dated 29.07.2021 & 09.10.2021 along with receipt dated 07.07.2022 are not part of pleadings. Whatever documents were put before the then Hon’ble Bench of this Commission for consideration; the same were appropriately considered while accepting consumer’s complaint through order dated 20.11.2022. The application now filed, for seeking review/modification of this order dated 20.11.2022, for inclusion of amount of Rs.1,78,499/-, deposited vide receipt dated 11.07.2022, in amount already awarded (Rs.34,05,629/-) to be refunded to complainant, tantamount to altering the integral part of  relief granted to him vide judgment dated 20.11.2022. It is legally not permissible. Complainant should have filed appeal against order dated 20.11.2022 before appropriate Appellate Authority along with application for additional evidence. However, this legal recourse was not adopted and no such appeal has been filed.

7.                Be that as it may, this Commission is conscious of the fact that receipt of amount of Rs.1,78,499/- by opposite parties has not been specifically denied in their reply. Annexrue-A-5-receipt dated 07.07.2022 substantiates that this amount of Rs.1,78,499/- has, in fact, been received by opposite parties. Admittedly, when this amount has been received by opposite parties, than at that time, judgment in complaint case No.429 of 2017 has not been delivered by Hon’ble Bench of this Commission. Two demand letters dated 29.07.2021 & 09.10.2021 (Annexure A-3 & Annexure-A-4) have been confronted upon complainant by opposite parties during pendency of this complaint and only in furtherance thereto; complainant had deposited amount of Rs.1,78,499/-. OPs should not have confronted complainant with these demand letters, when it was conscious of the fact that complaint is still sub-judice. But having done so; now it does not lie in mouth of OPs to say that: these demand letters and receipts are not part of pleadings. This is particularly when, OPs have tendered their defence/written version in main complaint on 11.01.2018 (it is apparent as such from order dated 11.01.2018 passed in main complaint) and concededly demand letters, referred above are, subsequent to filing of defense by OP. Even in the evidence of OPs; there is no reference qua these demand letters.

9.                In wake of above, it is held that: OPs have admitted, having received Rs.1,78,499/- from complainant, on 07.07.2022, on force of their demand letters dated 29.07.2021 and 09.10.2021. Of course, as a legal corollary so flowing; OPs have now ensuing legal liability, so created by them alone, through their above acts, to refund this amount of Rs.1,78,499/- as well, to complainant along with amount already ordered to be refunded to him by virtue of Judgment/order dated 20.11.2022, in process of execution, which complainant can legally undertake any time. Legally and strictly speaking, there would be no review-modification of order dated 20.11.2022. Hence, M.A. No.20 of 2023 is disposed off in above terms, by rejecting the prayer for review/modification made therein. File be consigned to record room.