NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3940/2011

EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVENDER SINGH DAHIYA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. THAKUR SUMIT

27 Apr 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 07/06/2011 in Appeal No. 422/2011 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. & ANR.
through its D.G.M., registered Office: ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
Delhi
2. Emaar MGF lamd Limited.,
through Its DGM,SCO Nos 120-122 first floor, Sector-17-C
Chandigarh -
UT - 160017
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DEVENDER SINGH DAHIYA & ANR.
S/o Shri Om Prakash Dahiya, R/o DB-416 Arya Nagar, Opp Shiv Mandir
Sonepat
Haryana
2. M/s Rajiv Property,
through Rajiv Kumar, 183L Model Town,
Sonepat
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shubhankarsen Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Ms. Rashu Gautam, Advocate
Mr. D. S. Dahiya, In person

Dated : 27 Apr 2012
ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 422 / 2011, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The consumer dispute related to the payment of interest on the deposit of Rs.10,35,000/- which the complainant had made with the petitioner developer towards the cost of a plot of land in Mohali Hills, Mohali developed by the petitioner. Acceding to the request of the respondent / complainant for cancellation of the said booking and refund of the deposited amount, the petitioner refunded the deposited amount, i.e., Rs.10,35,000/- to the respondent / complainant on his giving an undertaking in the shape of an affidavit dated 31.07.2010. The respondent / complainant received the amount. Thereafter, the complaint was filed which was allowed by the District Forum directing the OP to pay interest @9% p.a. on the said amount with effect from 23.09.2006 till 31.07.2010 and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient service besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Commission pleading that the complainant having received the entire deposited amount Rs.10,35,000/-, he could not have raised the question once again before the District Forum. This was repelled by the State Commission and the appeal was dismissed. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person. In our view, both the fora below have overlooked the important aspect about the builder having acceding to the request of the complainant had refunded the entire deposited amount to him as per his request. At that time the complainant gave an undertaking not to claim any amount. Having done so, the complainant could not have agitated the issue again. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to allow this revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below granting the relief which they have granted. Ordered accordingly.

 
......................J
R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S. K. NAIK
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.