Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/24/2016

Anshal Properties and Infrasture Ltd through Managing Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sonal Gupta D/O S.K.Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Devendra Mohan Mathur

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 24 /2016

 

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., regd office 15, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi & ors.

Vs.

 

Smt.Sonal Gupta d/o S.K.Gupta & Dr.S.K.Gupta s/o O.P.Gupta both r/o 69/326 V.T.Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 10.6.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

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

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 1.12.2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur 3^rd whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that initially the built up area of the villa was 251 sq.yd.which was changed to 185.43 sq.mt. meaning thereby 222 sq.yd. but it was no deficiency on the part of the appellant. As per condition no. 4 of the agreement he was authorized to change the dimension and area of the plot hence, the complaint should have been rejected.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant was authorized to change the area and dimension of the plot as per condition no. 4 but the authority to change unilaterally and that too detriment to the consumer is unfair trade practice and be that may be the case the consumer cannot be forced to have the possession of plot with changed area. Further more the villa

3

 

was not constructed as per the specification and timely the possession has not been given to the consumer and the Forum below has rightly held that it was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and so also the unfair trade practice and rightly ordered for re-payment of the money advanced to the appellant with interest and suitable compensation is awarded.

 

Hence, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm