Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/515

EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDRA KANTA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                   Date of Decision: 05.11.2015

First Appeal No. 515/2010

(Arising out of the order dated 26.05.2010 passed in complaint case No. 910/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

EMAAR MGF Land Ltd.

ECE House,

28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001                                       Appellant

 

Versus

 

Chandra Kanta

19-A Railway Officers’ Enclave

Sardar Patel Marg

New Delhi                                          Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Appellant has impugned the orders dt. 26.05.2010. Vide said orders the appellant herein was directed to pay to the OP/respondent an amount of Rs. 12,15,767/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation. Besides this, costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- were also awarded in favour of the complainant/respondent.
2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant booked a flat with the OP/appellant herein with an area of 1125 sq. ft. by making a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 22.07.2009. OP made the provisional allotment vide its letter dt. 09.08.2009. Total sale consideration of the flat was Rs. 42,18,750/-. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,82,045/- by 23.09.2009 and another amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- on 25.09.2009. Amount of Rs. 3,30,767/- was paid on 06.11.2009. In all the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 12,15,767/- with the OP. Contention of the complainant was that the OP could not get necessary approval from the government authorities with the result that the project could not take off. On visit to the site he found no activity going on.
3.      Ld. District Forum issued a notice of the complaint to the OP vide orders dt. 08.01.2010. Vide order dt. 26.03.2010 Ld. District Forum observed that the notice sent was not received back. Fresh notice returnable for 14.04.2010 was directed to be issued. 14.04.2010 was a holiday. Matter hence was taken up on 15.04.2010. Since none was present on behalf of the parties on 15.04.2010, matter was posted for 05.05.2010. On 05.05.2010 Ld. District Forum passed an order which is reproduced below:

“Pr. Complainant Counsel.

None for OP.

Service was effected on the O.P. on 1.4.10 and the complainant has filed copy of the receipt.

Case will proceed Ex-parte against the O.P.

Fix 18/5/10, for evidence of the complainant.”

 

4.      Perusal of the abovesaid orders (dated 05.05.2010) shows that the Ld. District Forum failed to indicate as to what was the mode of service vide which service was effected on the OP on 01.04.2010. At the same time Ld. District Forum fell in error in that the matter was listed for 14.04.2010 which was a holiday. After taking up the matter on 15.04.2010, a fresh notice ought have been issued, when none was present for the parties. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum wrongly proceeded against OP ex-parte. Orders dt. 05.05.2010 and dt. 26.05.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum-II are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum-II for taking on record the written version of the OP/appellant herein. Appellant to appear before the District Forum-II on 15.12.2015 and file its written version on that very date. Ld. District Forum shall decide the case on merits after giving a notice to the complainant. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
5.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
6.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)