NCDRC

NCDRC

RA/299/2019

DR. HARJEET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RISHABH KAPUR

22 Nov 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2019
 
IN
FA/1298/2018
1. DR. HARJEET KAUR
...........Appellants(s)
Versus 
1. UNITECH LTD.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 22 Nov 2019
ORDER

This application, under Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the “Act”), has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant praying for review of the order, dated 04.09.2019, passed by this Commission. By the said order, the First Appeal No.1298 of 2018 filed by him was allowed observing as under:-

 

“5.       We have heard the rival submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and are of the considered opinion that as the Appellant had taken loan from the L.I.C. at interest @9.25% p.a. and under the provisions of the PAPRA, the amount of interest @12% p.a. is payable by the Builder/Developer from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment, the State Commission even though have mentioned the aforesaid facts in the body of the impugned order was not justified in directing the Opposite Party Builder only to pay charges @Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month of the Area of the Plot for the period of delay w.e.f. 04.12.2011 till delivery of possession complete in all respects and that too without giving any reasons for it.  The aforesaid direction cannot be maintained and requires modification.  Accordingly, we are of the view that it will be justified, if we modify the order passed by the State Commission and direct the Respondent to pay interest @10% p.a. instead of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month from 04.12.2019 till the date of actual payment as directed by the State Commission as the Appellant Complainant had taken loan from L.I.C. and is obliged to pay interest @9.25% p.a. Rest of the directions given by the State Commission are maintained.  The observation made just in the last line of the paragraph No. 27 of the impugned order passed by the State Commission is modified and it is stated that the Complainant is entitled for the possession of the plot.”

 

2.      The review of the order, dated 04.09.2019 has been sought on the ground that a typographical error has crept in, in para 5 of the said order as the State Commission has directed the Builder to pay charges @ ₹50/- per sq. yard per month of the Area of the Plot for the period of delay w.e.f. 4.12.2011 till delivery of possession, complete in all respect. However, while modifying the said direction, the Builder has been directed to pay interest @10% p.a. instead of ₹50/- per sq. yard per month w.e.f. 04.12.2019 instead of 04.12.2011 as directed by the State Commission.

 

3.       Having perused the averments made in the Review Application and the order, dated 04.09.2019, we are of the considered view that a typographical error has crept in Paragraph 5 of the said order. The date, 04.12.2019 has been wrongly mentioned in the order in place of 04.12.2011.  The mistake which is apparent on the face of the record is corrected and the date, 04.12.2019 is substituted with 04.12.2011.

 

4.     The Review Application is disposed of accordingly. 

 

5.     The Registry is directed to communicate this order to both the parties.

 
......................J
R.K. AGRAWAL
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.