Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/478/2022

Shikant Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma & Mukesh Verma Adv.

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

  

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.T., Chandigarh

 

MA/478/2022 in RP/5/2022

 

 

Shikant Garg

Vs.

M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

 

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PRESENT :

 

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the applicant/complainant.

Sh. Shekhar Verma, Advocate & Mrs. Rupali S. Verma, Advocate for the non-applicant/Respondent No.6 (HDFC Bank) (on V.C.)

 

Dated: 06/07/2022

 

ORDER

         

                             An application has been filed by the complainant for recalling and clarification of this Commission’s order dated 25.05.2022. The petitioner/complainant has alleged that the aforesaid Revision Petition No.5 of 2022 against the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned District Commission-II in Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2022 vide which the stay on Pre-EMI and EMI granted in favour of the petitioner/complainant was vacated by the learned District Commission-II without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/complainant

                             This Commission vide its order dated 25.05.2022 has set aside the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned District Commission-II with a direction to decide a fresh after giving opportunity to the parties within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

                             This Commission vide order dated 25.05.2022 set aside the application of stay order dated 11.03.2022 and directed to continue the stay on EMI till the decision of the complaint, however, in the order dated 25.05.2022, it is mentioned as follow:-

“In the meanwhile till the decision of the complaint the operation of the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the concerned District Commission shall remain stayed”.

                             The petitioner has stated that the continuation of stay on EMI requires clarification as the learned District Commission-II has refused to continue the stay on EMI in the Consumer Complaint on the ground that the operation of the stay order dated 21.01.2022 is itself stayed not the EMI. We observe that once the stay order dated 11.03.2022 is itself set aside, the stay on EMI is ought to be continued. The petitioner seeks clarification of the order dated 21.01.2022.

                             This Commission is of the view that our order dated 25.05.2022 is modified as under:-

“In the meanwhile till the disposal of application vide M.A. No.478 of 2022 in R.P. No.5 of 2022 is done, the operation of the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the concerned District Commission shall continue.”

                             The learned District Commission is directed to adjudicate the case within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. The comments of the learned District Commission-II have been received and perused by this Commission

                             Office of this Commission is directed to remand this case to District Commission for appropriate action.

                            

 

 

 

 

Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[ PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Gp