Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/740/2017

Omaxe City through Authorized Representative - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ravindar Kumar Sharma s/o S.N.Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Maharshi

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 740/2017

 

Omaxe City, 111, Milestone, Near Bar ke Balaji, Bus stand, Near Kohinoor Marble, Jaipur Ajmer Express Highway, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

 

Ravinder Kumar Sharma s/o S.N.Sharma r/o 81/59 Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 10.12.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr.Rajesh Maharshi counsel for the appellant

Mr.D.M.Mathur counsel for the respondent

 

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

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 22.5.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the respondent was defaulter. He has not paid the requisite amount timely. Notice has also been served on him and the complaint is premature as the possession of the property was to be handed over within 24 months i.e. in August 2013 whereas the complaint has been filed prior to it on 17.4.2013.

 

The contention of the respondent is that the project is still not complete hence, claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the property was booked with the appellant and agreement Anx. R 5 is entered between the parties. This is also not in dispute that as per the agreement possession of the property was to be handed over within 24 months.

3

 

The contention of the appellant is that before lapse of 24 months complaint has been filed. Be that may be the case the appellant could not show that unit is ready for possession and even completion certificate has not been submitted. Hence, it can very well be concluded that till today the appellant is not in a position to give possession of the property to the respondent, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that money has not been paid on time. As per payment plan within 180 days 95% amount has to be paid.The Forum below has rightly held that out of sale price of Rs. 7,11,840/- the respondent has paid Rs. 6,46,230/- and even the substantial amount has been paid, the appellant is not in a position to give possession of the property. The respondent could not be forced to wait for unlimited time and the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that higher rate of interest i.e. 15% is allowed but as per agreement if consumer is paying the amount with delay then the appellant is charging 24% interest. Hence, the Forum below has rightly and

 

4

 

reasonably allowed 15% interest.

 

In view of the above,there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm