Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/733/2015

M/s M Tech Developers Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sunita Yadav w/o Pradeep Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Raj Tatia

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 733 /2015

 

M-Tech Developers Ltd. A N S House 144/2 Ashram Mathura Road, New Delhi & ors.

Vs.

 

Smt.Sunita Yadav w/o Pradeep Kumar r/o 280/A/23 Hiranagar Gurgaon at present r/o 57/21 Rajnagar Gali No.3 Gurgaon Harayana.

 

Date of Order 11.01.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellants

 

 

 

2

 

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

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 28.5.2015 whereby the court below has ordered for refund of Rs.10,70,000/- which was deposited with the appellant with interest.

 

The facts of the case clearly shows that a villa has been booked by the respondent with the appellants on 12.6.2006 and the amount of Rs.10,70,000/- were also deposited from time to time with the appellant. It has been admitted between the parties that within three years the possession of the villa will be handed over to the respondent but it is also admitted that within three years possession of the villa has not been handed over to the respondent. Thereafter the respondent asked for the possession of the property or refund of the money. Before the court below also the appellants were ready to refund the money but they were agitated the issue of interest and compensation and the court below has ordered to refund the money with interest.

 

There seems to be no issue between the parties which

3

 

could be settled in this appeal as on the admission of the appellants the money has been ordered to be refunded and the court below has rightly held that money has been used by the appellant so the interest is payable and no compensation is allowed to the respondent. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

During the course of arguments the counsel for the appellants has submitted that in another case pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, they have paid the total amount to the respondent, if so the court below is competent to take note of it. There is no infirmity in the order and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm