Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/6/2016

Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ranjit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Chopra, Adv.

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	6 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	14.01.2016

 

Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Ranjit Singh resident of Flat No.29, First Floor, Palm Grove, Sector 115, Mohali.  

….Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

(ORAL)

                    Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 28 days as per the applicant/appellant  (as per the office report 29 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

2.         Heard.

3.         For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid is condoned.

4.         The application is disposed of accordingly.

5.         The appeal be registered.

6.         Admitted.

7.         Let notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent.

8.         On our asking, Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent and accepts notice of appeal. Copy of the appeal alongwith documents have been supplied to him.

9.         In this case, the matter has amicably been settled between the parties.

10.        Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, Counsel  for the appellant on getting instructions on telephone from the appellant states that as a goodwill gesture, to settle dispute as one time measure, without any precedent, that the appellant shall not charge towards areas, which fall under external services i.e. underground water tank, electricity sub-station, pump room, STP, Exhaust & fresh air shaft, generator flue shaft frame, guard room, meter room isolator and driver room, from the complainant/respondent in this case.

11.        To the proposal made, Counsel for the respondent has raised no objection. He states that after excluding that area, for rest of the area, the appellant shall not make refund and rest of the amount be paid.

12.        As per facts, it was case of the respondent/complainant that at the time of handing over of possession, an amount of Rs.2,98,475/- was got paid by the appellant wrongly by alleging that additional area of 153 Sq. ft.  has been given to the respondent/complainant.

13.        We have seen the reports made by the contending Local Commissioners.

14.        In the present case, if the area meant for external services, as stated above, is deducted from 153 Sq. Ft. area, the appellant shall refund amount for area measuring 52.186 Sq. ft. @Rs.1,950.82 per Sq. Ft. with interest @8% per annum (simple) from the date of handing over of possession plus Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Let the amount be calculated and repaid to the respondent/complainant within a period of 30 days from today, failing which, the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to get interest @15% per annum (simple) from the date of default till realization of the amount.

15.        In view of above, the appeal stands disposed of.

16.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.        File be consigned to the record room, after completion.

Pronounced

January  14, 2016.                                      

                       

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rb/AD