APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellants | : | Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate |
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd MAY 2018 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned interim order dated 13.09.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) rejecting an application filed by the appellants/complainants in proceedings in consumer complaint No. 1132/2015 before them seeking interim directions to the Opposite Parties, not to raise additional demands of money from them for the property in question. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/complainants M.S. Upadhyay and another, filed consumer complaint No. 1132/2015 before the State Commission against the Opposite Parties (OPs)/respondents M/s. Supertech Ltd. and Ors., stating that they had booked a 2 BHK flat in Supertech Capetown Project Sector-74, Noida (U.P.) launched by the OPs for a total sale consideration of ₹25,66,800/-. According to the complainants, they had deposited 95% of the total value of the unit allotted to them, but the OPs were still raising demand for payment of a sum of ₹8,85,256/- from them. The complainants sought directions from the District Forum to the OPs for handing over the possession of the unit in question and to execute the sale-deed for the same and to drop the demand of ₹8,85,256/-. The compensation in the shape of interest on the amount deposited for the period of delay and a further compensation of ₹5 lakh for mental agony etc. were also demanded. During proceedings before the State Commission, the complainants filed an application before them, seeking directions to restraint the OPs from raising further demand and imposing holding charges. However, the State Commission rejected the said application, saying that the issue as to whether the alleged demand was as per the agreement or not, shall be decided at the time of final arguments. However, the State Commission directed that the OPs shall not take any steps about the cancellation of the unit etc. The State Commission observed in their order as follows:- “We have considered the submissions made. As per complainant, he has already paid 95% of the total value of the unit allotted to him and only balance payment of 5% is to be made which is about Rs.1,25,000/-, whereas as per OP, the complainant has to pay Rs.8,85,256/-. In these circumstances, the prayer made in this application cannot be acceded to and the issue whether the alleged demand is as per agreement or not shall be decided at the time of final arguments. However, counsel for the OP in fairness agreed that till the matter is pending before this Commission, the OP shall not take any action against the complainant towards cancellation etc. Application stands disposed of.” 3. Being aggrieved against the above interim order of the State Commission, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present First Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants was heard. He pleaded that a direction should be issued to the OPs not to charge a sum of ₹8,85,256/- as being demanded by them, because the complainants had already paid 95% of the consideration for the said unit. The State Commission had, therefore, taken an erroneous view in rejecting the application filed by them. 5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 6. The application dated 28.05.2016, filed by the appellants/complainants before the State Commission in proceedings in the consumer complaint, seeking restraint upon the OPs from raising further demand and imposing holding charges has been perused. It has been alleged that the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the unit, although 95% of the consideration amount had already been paid to them. Moreover, the OPs were sending further demand letters to the complainant raising demand of ₹9,31,756/- and also seeking ₹46,500/- as holding charges for the said flat. Vide impugned order as reproduced above, the State Commission have stated categorically that whether the additional demand is in accordance with the agreement, shall be decided at the time of final arguments. Before the State Commission, the OPs stated that they shall not take any amount towards cancellation etc. of the said unit. It is made out from these facts that after considering the evidence filed by both the parties, the State Commission shall decide whether the additional demand raised by the OPs was justified or not. 7. Since the OPs have already agreed that they shall not take any coercive steps like cancellation of the unit etc., it is felt that no prejudice shall be caused to the appellants/complainants, if the restraint order as sought by them is not made. It is evident, therefore, that the interim impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error. The plea taken by the complainants shall be addressed adequately after considering the evidence and hearing the final arguments led by both the parties. In the light of these facts, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed. The impugned interim order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
