APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellants | : | Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate Ms. Shweta Priyadarsini, Advocate Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate | For the Respondents | : | Mr. Y. P. Narula, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ujas Kumar, Advocate |
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th MAY 2018 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned interim order dated 20.03.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 840/2015, vide which, an application filed by the respondents/complainants, with regard to the delivery of possession of the property in question, and the execution and registration of sale-deed for the same, pending the disposal of the main complaint, was allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are the respondents/ complainants filed consumer complaint No. 840/2015 against the present appellants/opposite parties (OPs) M/s DLF Home Developers Limited, alleging that they had failed to deliver the possession of the property in question, in accordance with the terms and conditions, laid down in the agreement between the parties. The complainants sought directions to the OPs to hand over the possession of the property to the complainants after completing the pending construction work and also grant them compensation for delay in the delivery of possession, in addition to compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. 3. During the pendency of the consumer complaint, an application was moved before the State Commission with the prayer to direct the OPs to hand over the possession of the flat immediately. Vide impugned interim order, the State Commission directed as follows:- “In view of the aforesaid correspondence of OPs placed before us, we direct the OPs to handover the possession of the flat in question i.e. Flat No.GBF021 in New Town Heights, Phase-III, Sector-91, Gurgaon to the complainants by executing registration deed/sale deed in their favour within 8 weeks from the receipt of this order. The claim of the complainants for compensation for the remaining period as well as the contention of the OPs about holding charges, maintenance charges, increased area etc. shall be determined after recording the evidence of the parties.” 4. Being aggrieved against the above impugned interim order passed by the State Commission, the appellants/OPs are before this Commission by way of the present appeal. 5. During hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned interim order was not in accordance with law, because a direction had been given to them to execute and register the sale-deed in favour of the complainants, although no such prayer had been made by the complainants in their complaints. The learned counsel further stated that the execution of the sale-deed as well as the delivery of possession could not be done to the respondents/complainants, until the charges due from them were fully realised by the appellants/OPs. The learned counsel further stated that the appellants/OPs were prepared to give effect to the directions given by the State Commission in the impugned interim order, provided the interest bearing maintenance security (IBMS) amount of ₹96,050/-, the maintenance charges and the holding charges were fully paid by the respondents/complainants. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents/complainants stated that they could not be asked to make any payment to the appellants/OPs, because their claim for the grant of compensation on account of delayed possession was pending before the State Commission. The learned Senior Advocate stated categorically that they were not willing to pay the charges for IBMS, maintenance and holding charges of flat, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants during arguments. 7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 8. A perusal of the impugned interim order indicates that the main consumer complaint is still to be adjudicated by the State Commission, and they have stated in their order as reproduced above that the claim of the complainants for compensation for the period of delay, as well as the contention of the OPs about the holding charges, maintenance charges, increased area etc. shall be determined after recording the evidence of the parties. Since the appellants have expressed strong reservations about the execution of sale-deed in favour of the complainants without realising the charges as demanded by them, it would be in the interest of justice, if a final decision on the consumer complaint is made after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead appropriate evidence in their favour. As indicated in the impugned order itself, a number of issues involving payments to be made by either of the parties are pending and these should be resolved before the sale-deed etc. is executed. 9. Based on the discussion above, the instant appeal is allowed, the interim directions given in the impugned interim order are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the directions that they should provide a chance to both the parties to lead evidence in their favour and then dispose of the consumer complaint in accordance with law. |
