Delhi

StateCommission

RP/1/2015

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. RENU JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

SHALINI

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:02.07.2015

Revision Petition No. 1/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 01.12.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 243/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), M-Block, New Delhi)

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi.

(Through Authorized Representative)

                                                                 ….Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Renu Jain,

W/o Arun Kumar Jain,

R/o D-II/65, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi.

 

2. Mr. Arun Kumar Jain,

S/o Sh. Prem Chand Jain,

R/o D-II/65, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                       ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 1.12.14 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”).
2. The respondents herein are the complainants before the District Forum.  They have filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum which is pending disposal.  In the said complaint, the respondents/complainants have alleged that Ms Jasbir Sandhu got herself registered for a residential flat on 11.10.2004 with appellant/OP and had paid Rs.6,75,000/- as initial payment.  Thereafter she had further made payments to appellant/OP, the details of which have been given in the complaint.  Subsequently, Mrs. Jasbir Sandhu transferred her booking in the name of the respondents/complainants and all necessary documents were executed.  It is alleged that the transfer of flat in the joint names of the respondents/complainants was duly registered with the appellant/OP on 1.04.2006.  It is also alleged that the respondents/complainants have also taken loan from the bank for purchasing of the aforesaid flat.  It is alleged that the appellant/OP was supposed to handover the possession of the flat in March/April, 2009.  But still the same is not at completion stage and till date it is not clear as to when the possession will be given to the respondents/complainants.  Accordingly respondents/complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum making the following prayers:
   1. Pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party thereby directing the opposite parties to:

Award compensation as per the following schedule (in addition to amount due to be paid by the defendant as per Clause 10(a) of the agreement).

1. Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) for the opportunity loss suffered by complainant due to fault of defendant.
2. Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) for the litigation cost suffered by complainant.
3. Award interest penalty on the actual interest amount which had been paid due to fault of the defendants.
2. To direct the opposite party to claim no interest from the complainant and ask for last installment only after giving possession.
3. Award the cost of litigation expenses in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
4. Any other or further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to grant in favour of the complainant in view of the facts of the above case.

 

3. The aforesaid complaint has been contested by the appellant/OP by filing detailed written statement. The respondents/ complainants have chosen not to file rejoinder.  It is stated that both the parties have also filed evidence before the Ld. District Forum.    
4. It is further stated that the Ld. District Forum heard the  arguments on interim relief.  On 10.11.13, order for interim relief was passed directing the appellant/OP to pay penalty/compensation as agreed by the parties as per terms stated in the agreement for the delay every month immediately till possession is delivered.  The Ld. District Forum also ordered that the balance payment of Rs.5,49,103/- will be adjusted against the penalty till final letter of possession is given. 
5. It is stated that thereafter vide impugned order dated 1.12.14, the Ld. District Forum has increased the amount of compensation from Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. to Rs.25/- per Sq.ft. w.e.f. January, 2015.  It is further stated in the impugned order that the amount will be increased further.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present petition is filed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant/OP has been paying Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. as per agreement between the parties and by impugned order, the compensation has been increased to Rs.25/- per Sq.ft. by recording that the Counsel for the appellant/OP has conceded for the same on the last date of hearing.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that on 1.12.2014, the Counsel for the appellant/OP was not present before the District Forum and Proxy Counsel had appeared.  It is further submitted that on the previous date on 16.9.14, the Counsel for the respondent never stated for the increase in the compensation nor anything is recorded in order dated 16.9.14.  It is submitted that no application for the increase of interim relief was also filed by the respondents/complainants and it was only on oral request of the respondents/complainants, the interim relief has been enhanced from Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. to Rs.25/- per Sq.ft per month on 1.12.14.  It is contended that when there was no consent of the Counsel for the appellant/OP, the District Forum ought not have increased the same.  It is further stated that even as per the agreement between the parties, the agreed rate is Rs.10/- per Sq.ft p.m. for the delay.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that since there is delay in giving the possession of the flat, the District Forum is right in increasing the compensation from Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. to Rs.25/- per Sq.ft. p.m. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/complainants has agreed that no statement of the Counsel for the respondents/complainants was there on 1.12.14 for the increase in compensation as is recorded in the impugned order.
9. In view of the above submission of the parties, we are satisfied that the District Forum was not justified in increasing the compensation from Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. to Rs.25/- per Sq.ft. by recording that the Counsel for appellant/OP has conceded for the same on the last date of hearing.  We have perused the said order also i.e. 16.9.14.  No such statement of Counsel for Petitioner is recorded in the impugned order as is mentioned in the impugned order.  The impugned order is contrary to record.  In these circumstances, we set aside the same. The District Forum shall rehear the matter on the point of increase of interim relief and shall pass fresh order after considering the material on record as there is no consent of appellant/OP in this regard.  The District Forum shall be free to pass the order on the basis of material on record if the circumstances of the case warrants.  The Ld. District Forum shall be at liberty to pass fresh order uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.  Till the fresh order is passed by the District Forum, the interim payment of compensation shall be Rs.10/- per Sq.ft. as has been continuing.
10. Revision petition stands allowed.
11. Parties to appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member