NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3891-3893/2010

MANOJ KUMAR ARORA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. DALEEP KUMAR DHAYANI

13 Dec 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3891-3893 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 12/08/2010 in Appeal No. 1241/1998 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)

1. MANOJ KUMAR ARORA & ANR. R/o. HIG-A9, Ashiyana Colony, Phase-I, Near Sadh Bhawan, Nursing Home Moradabad - 244001 Uttar Pradesh 2. NAVEEN KUMAR ARORA R/o. HIG-A9, Ashiyana Colony, Phase-I, Near Sadh Bhawan, Nursing Home Moradabad - 244001 Uttar Pradesh	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. Neelgiri Commercial Centre, Mansarovar Scheme, Majhola Delhi Road Moradabad Uttar Pradesh	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. DALEEP KUMAR DHAYANI, ADVOCATE WITH PETITIONER IN PERSON

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 13 Dec 2010

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioners. The order of the State Commission shows that the State Commission set aside the majority judgement and allowed the appeal No.1241/1998 with cost of Rs.5000/-. It was further held that the complaint being pre mature and devoid of merit and having proved no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant, the same deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The State Commission further observed that the Complainant may, however, deposit the balance amount alongwith agreed simple interest and take the shop within one month. This was not accepted by the Complainants/Petitioners and Counsel for the Appellants/Complainants requested that money deposited by the Complainants be directed to be refunded. In view of this, the State Commission had passed an order directing that amount of Rs.1,85,012.20 may be refunded to the Complainants alongwith agreed rate of interest from the date of filing of the appeal. In view of these findings of the State Commission, we are not inclined to consider the submission placed before us by the Counsel for the Petitioners that now the Petitioners are ready to take the shop in question. After the dismissal of complaint for failure to prove deficiency and complaint being premature as also dismissal of appeal of Complainants, the complainants did not accept the option given to take the shop on deposit of balance amount with agreed simple interest and the request for refund was made which was allowed as prayed before State Commission. The Petitioner cannot now be permitted to change their stand in revision. In view of the above, the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER