UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Satinder Kumar Rana, Advocate alongwith Sh. Ashish  Rana, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.

                  Mrs. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5 exparte vide order dated 01.07.2022.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against order dated 09.05.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), passed in MA No.19 of 2022, vide which, it allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. HDFC, as under:-

“……It is further argued that the similar matter wherein stay was granted by this Commission has been set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 28.2.2022 and in view of aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, this application deserves to be allowed and the stay be vacated accordingly.”

2. Counsel for the revision petitioners/complainants has argued that they filed a miscellaneous application for directing the Opposite Party No.2 (HDFCL) not to deduct PEMI/EMI from the account of the complainant during the pendency of the complaint or till handing over of possession of the dwelling unit. It was stated that the when the case was admitted on 31.12.2021, the District Commission has passed the following order:-
   •  
   •  

Heard. Be registered. Admit. Notice be given to OP(s) through registered A.D. cover for 07.04.2022.

An application has also been moved by the complainant alongwith the complaint for issuing direction to OP No.2 for staying payment of pre-EMIs/EMIs during the pendency of the complaint.

After going through the application as well the case file, we allow the application and direct OP No.2 not to deduct any pre-EMIs/EMIs from the account of the complainants till the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be also sent alongwith Notice. A Dasti of this order be also given to the complainants.”

3. It was further argued that the Opposite Party No.2 (HDFCL) did not file reply to the complaint and miscellaneous application, though they filed two miscellaneous applications, one for preponing the date of hearing and second for vacation of the interim order dated 31.12.2021. It was stated that after receiving the notice of those applications the complainant filed their reply and vide impugned order dated 09.05.2022, stay order dated 31.12.2021 was vacated relying upon the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by this Commission in RP No.11 of 2021. He further argued that the learned District Commission has wrongly applied the ratio of law of the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the State Commission in RP No.11 of 2021, because the facts of both the cases are different and therefore, the complainants prayed for accepting this revision petition.
4.  We have heard the arguments of Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and the record.
5. The main grouse of the Revision Petitioner is that vide order dated 09.05.2022 a reference has been made to the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the learned District Commission, wherein a direction was passed to the Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 for not to deduct Pre-EMIs/EMI from the account of the complainants till the next date of hearing, but vide MA/19/2022 in CC/961/2021 an application has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 for vacation of the above said order drawn attention to Clause 4 of the Tripartite Agreement which reads as under:-

“That irrespective of the stage of construction of the Project and irrespective of the date of handing over the possession of the residential apartment to the Borrower by the Builder the Borrower shall be liable to pay to HDFC regularly each month of the EMIs as laid down in the Loan Agreement to be signed by and between HDFC and the Borrower. The Borrower shall execute an indemnity and such other documents as maybe required by HDFC in favour of HDFC in this regard.”

6. Accordingly, the learned District Commission vacated the stay granted vide its order dated 09.05.2022. The Revision Petitioner now has prayed for setting aside the above order of the learned District Commission, but in the opinion of this Commission this Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed since as already discussed vide para 4 of the agreement, the borrower shall be liable to pay HDFC regularly each month, the EMIs as mentioned in the loan Agreement. Therefore, this Revision Petition stands dismissed.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to cost. The order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the District Commission, which is under challenge, in this revision petition is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

01.11.2022           

                                                                     Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                                       Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                              Sd/-                                      

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP