Haryana

StateCommission

A/351/2017

SRS.SUNITA RAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JANGVIR SINGH HOODA

15 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

         

                                                 First Appeal No.           351 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution:       28.03.2017

                                                Date of Decision:         15.05.2017

 

Mrs. Sunita Rawat wife of Jitender Rawat, resident of House No.DU 908, Sawal Vihar, G.T. Road, Palwal.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Omaxe Limited, Corporate Office 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Omaxe Limited, Palwal through Manager, G. T. Road, Palwal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                     

 

Present:              Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Sunita Rawat-complainant (appellant) against the order dated February 27^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was partly allowed.  Omaxe Limited-opposite party (for short ‘builder’) was directed to handover the physical possession of the flat bearing No.OHHP/4BR/Second/547, Omaxe Happy Homes, District Palwal; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5100/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

  

 

2.      The complainant booked a flat with the builder on December 15^th, 2011.  The basic price of the flat was Rs.27,16,012/-.  The complainant paid the said amount to the builder.  The builder did not handover the possession of the flat within the stipulated period of eighteen months from the date of agreement, that is, May 11^th, 2012.  The builder raised a demand of Rs.4,18,198.71, which the complainant did not deposit.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the builder as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      The complainant has come up in appeal on the short ground that the District Forum did not grant interest on the deposited amount. 

5.      The District Forum has not only directed the builder to handover physical possession of the flat but also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards compensation besides Rs.5100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

     

Announced 15.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK