NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/578/2010

DEEPAK BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. RAGLAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. RAKESH MALHOTRA & ASSOCIATES

01 Apr 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 28 Jan 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/578/2010
(Against the Order dated 07/10/2009 in Appeal No. 31/2009 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. DEEPAK BANSALS/o Sh. M.C. Bansal, # 1198, Sector-28-BCHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/S. RAGLAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR.Circuar Arcase, Near Rialway Crossing, Zirakpur-Shimla Highway, DhakoliZIRAKPUR- (NAC)2. M/S. ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD.SCO No.174-175, 2nd Floor, Sector -9, Madhya MargCHANDIGARH - 160 017 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :M/S. RAKESH MALHOTRA & ASSOCIATES
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 01 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Delay of 8 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Complainant/petitioner opted for allotment of a flat offered by builder (OP-1) in Gulmohar City, Zirakpur under the name of “Reglan Infrastructure Ltd.” and, as per brochure, the scheme was duly approved by PUDA.  OP-2, the bank, had agreed to finance the amount for the flat.  Petitioner took the loan from OP-2 and paid the amount to the builder in instalments towards the cost of the flat.  There was a delay in the construction of the flats and the petitioner filed a complaint against OPs 1 and 2 seeking delivery of possession as well as payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent for the flat.  Another grievance made was that instead of allotting the flat on first floor, he was allotted a flat on the second floor. 

          District Forum, vide its order dated 2.12.2008, disposed of the complaint with the following observations :

OP No.1, as and when the flats would be ready & complete in all respect for delivering its physical possession, shall issue a letter offering physical possession of the flat to the complainant, subject to his depositing the whole balance amount within 60 days from its receipt & in case the complainant is not interested in taking possession of the flat as per the agreed terms & conditions.  OP No.1 would refund the entire amount received from the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit till the date of payment.”

 

          Complaint against OP-2 was dismissed. 

Petitioner as well as OP-1 preferred separate appeals before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by OP-1 and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner waiving the costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the District Forum.  Certain other reliefs were also granted to the petitioner.  The order of the dismissal of the complaint against OP-2 was maintained. 

Petitioner/complainant has filed the present Revision Petition seeking the following reliefs :

1.    To set aside the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Ld. State District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and modify it to the extent that Respondent No.1 be directed to deliver the possession of the flat on the first floor of Gulmohar City immediately on payment of balance amount of Rs.25,000/-.

2.    Respondent No.2 be directed to return or refund or adjust a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs which has been paid by the petitioner on account of Pre EMI interest due to causing delay by the Respondent No.1 in handing over the possession of the flat.

3.    To pay a amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent which the complainant would have received from this Apartment with effect from April, 2007 till the possession is delivered to the complainant.

4.    To pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony harassment.

5.    to pay litigation expenses upto Rs.20,000/-.

 

We agree with the view taken by the fora below that no case is made out against OP-2.  OP-2 had only extended the financial help to the petitioner to enable him to purchase the flat which was duly disbursed by it.  Petitioner purchased the flat and paid the instalments from the loan raised by him from OP-2.  There is no fault of OP-2 and the fora below have rightly held that the complaint filed by the petitioner against OP-2 was frivolous. 

We further agree that the petitioner is not entitled to any rent for the delayed period as the price of the flat has increase tremendously during this period.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER