Delhi

StateCommission

RP/48/2019

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANISH GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH BHARDWAJ

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 27.01.2020 

Date of Decision :  03.02.2020

Revision Petition No.48/2019

 

In the matter of :-

 

Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Having its registered office at”

Parsvnath Tower,

Near Shahadra Metro Station,

Shahdra, Delhi-110032.

 

(Through its authorised representative)

 

Also at:

 

6^th Floor, Aruncahal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-11001.                                                             …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Manish Gupta,

A-120, Sector-30,

Noida, UP.                                                                      ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

 

Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Judgement

1. The present revision challenges order dated 29.07.2019 passed by District Forum in Execution No.46/18.  The same recites that appellant/JD presented two drafts of Rs.3 lacs in all which were kept on record. District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 05.04.2013 and directed appellant to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent herein/complainant.  The said order was challenged by way of Appeal No.601/17. Vide order dated 12.07.2017 this Commission directed the appellant to pay Rs.5 lacs to the complainant within two months.  The appellant did not make the payment during two months, so the execution was filed. The District Forum noted that this Commission disposed of the appeal on the statement made by appellant. Even on the date of impugned order, appellant was not making full payment.  There was delay of 1.7 years in compliance with the order of this Commission. So appellant was directed to pay Rs.1 lac as penalty to the respondent and Rs.1 lac in Delhi State Welfare Fund.

 

2. The respondent was served for 23.08.2019 and put in appearance through his counsel Sh. Gagan Kumar.  It was revealed that petitioner had deposited two Pay Orders of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- both dated 04.05.2019 which were lying in the file of District Forum.  Pay Order for Rs.3 lacs already filed in District Forum and aforesaid two pay orders became stale by that date. So the petitioner was directed to collect the same from the file of District Forum and get fresh pay orders of Rs.5 lacs prepared.

 

3. On 11.09.2019 petitioner filed copy of order dated 02.09.2019 passed by District Forum reciting that pay orders could not returned to the petitioner for revalidation due to non tracing of the file.

 

4. On 10.10.2019 counsel for the petitioner stated that he has received all the four pay orders deposited by him in the District Forum and got fresh four orders prepared so as to revalidate the same. Four new pay orders were handed over to the respondent.  From the next date i.e. 27.01.20 respondent stared absenting.

 

5. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Last order in the complaint stands complied with.  Controversy remains regarding payment of penalty of Rs.1 lac to complainant and payment of Rs.1 lac in  State Welfare Fund.  I feel that since main order has been complied with, there is no justification to sustain the penalty payable to respondent/complainant and payment in State Welfare Fund.  Hence revision is accepted, impugned order is modified.  The payment already made by petitioner shall be deemed to have complied with the orders in main complaint.  The revision is disposed of accordingly.

 

6. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

7. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

8. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

Bench-2

                              

245.