| First Appeal No. FA/478/2014 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) |
| | | | 1. SEVEN HILLS ESTATE LTD. | | 515, JYOTI SIKAHAR, 8, DISTRICT CENTRE, JANAKPURI, DELHI-110058. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. SHESADEV NAYAK | | FLAT No.136, NEW FACULTY BUILDING, EMPI BUSINESS SCHOOL, (NEAR CSKM PUBLIC SCHOOL), SATBARI, CHATTARPUR, NEW DELHI-110074. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 10.07.2014 First Appeal No. - 478/2014(Arising from the order dated 31.03.2014 passed by District Forum-V in Complaint Case No. 1181/2011) 1.M/s. Seven Hills Estate Ltd., 515, Jyoti Sikahar, 8, District Center, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058. 2.Managing Director, M/s. Seven Hills Estate Ltd., Office at Plot No.351, Sipasurubuli, Damodar Road, Puri-752001 (Orissa) | | …………… Appellants | | | | | Vs | | Shesadev Nayak, Flat No.136, New Faculty Building, EMPI Business School, (Near CSKM Public School), Satbari, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074. | | | | | ……….. Respondent | | | | Coram SalmaNoor,PresidingMember NP Kaushik,Member(Judicial) | | | 1. | Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? | 2. | To be referred to the reporter or not? | N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) | | | | | |
- We have heard Counsels for the Appellant, Shri Gaurang Biswal and Shri Pramod Kumar Rath, Advocates. Respondent, Shri Shesadev Nayak is incidentally present in the court.
- Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the District Forum, North-West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In brief, the Respondent/Complainant had booked a flat with the Appellant/OP. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 7 lacs, out of which Rs. 2.55 lacs stood paid by Respondent/Complainant. The Appellant had cancelled the flat vide its letter dated 2.6.2010. The Appellant had placed reliance upon clause 24 of the agreement between the parties. Clause 24 is reproduced below:
- Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2.55 lacs along with the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with costs of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- were also awarded.
- Ld. District Forum while relying upon clause 24 (reproduced above), observed that the Appellant had failed to serve a notice of 15 days prior to the cancellation of allotment. In the present appeal too, it is not the case of the Appellant that any notice before the cancellation of the allotment was served upon the Respondent. It is also admitted case of the Appellant that flat in question stands allotted in favour of the third person. No notice admittedly was ever served upon the Respondent herein prior to the allotment of the flat in favour of a third person. For these reasons, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable. The same is thus dismissed in limine.
- FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
- A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
| |
