KULDIP SINGH DHINGRA filed a consumer case on 19 May 2023 against M/S KLJ DEVELOPERS PVT. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/301/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 29 May 2023.
Haryana
StateCommission
CC/301/2018
KULDIP SINGH DHINGRA - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S KLJ DEVELOPERS PVT. - Opp.Party(s)
SHEENU SURA
19 May 2023
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 10.05.2018
Date of final hearing:19.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.301 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Kuldip Singh Dhingra S/o Late Shri B.S. Dhingra R/o House No.914, 1st Floor, Sector-16, Faridabad.
….Complainant
Versus
M/s KLJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as KLJ Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.) Registered office: KLJ House 63 Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 through its Managing Director/Director.
Also at:
M/s KLJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sector 77 (Faridabad), Village Neemka, Sub-Tehsil Tigaon, District Faridabad.
….Opposite Party
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President
mrs. manjula, member
Present: Shri Ram Kumar Saini, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sood, counsel for the opposite party.
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
ORDER
The instant complaint has been preferred by complainant Kuldip Singh Dhingra under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein he is praying for issuance of directions to the opposite party;
to handover the possession of the flat No.601 on 6th Floor in Tower A-6, Sector 77 Faridabad;
to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount;
to refund a sum of Rs.2,89,054/- towards excess EDC/IDC and Rs.1,54,635/- wrongly charged as car parking with interest @12% per annum;
not to charge any holding charges, maintenance charges and interest for the delayed period;
to pay a sum of Rs.38,880/- towards extra EDC/IDC on alleged increased super area and a sum of Rs.1,62,335/- towards cost of escalation;
to provide the calculation/documents of the super area;
to cancel the demand of Rs.2,70,864/- for increase of extra super area;
to cancel the demand of Rs.69,572/- towards extra items demanded by the opposite party;
not to charge VAT and service tax unnecessarily;
to withdraw the demand of advance maintenance charges and revise the same as per actual monthly basis and not force the complainant to sign one sided maintenance agreement before taking the possession of the flat;
to cancel the one sided bond and complainant be not forced to sign such bond;
to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony’
to pay a sum of Rs.44,000/- against the cost of litigation expenses.
to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite party has put in appearance and filed the written version. This was followed by the parties recorded their respective evidence.
Counsel appearing for the complainant states that during the pendency of the complaint, the matter has been amicably settled. Under these circumstances, the complainant does not intend to pursue with the present complaint and he be allowed to withdraw the complaint.
In view of the above, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
The complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN)
PRESIDENT
(MANJULA)
MEMBER
Pronounced On:19.05.2023.
MS
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.