Delhi

StateCommission

A/332/2017

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S BATRA - Opp.Party(s)

KANIKA AGNIHOTRI

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:15.04.2019

 

First Appeal No.332/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 26.05.2017 passed in Execution Case No. 04/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi)

 

TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,

9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi -110001.                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

S.S. Batra & Sons (HUF),

R/o 258, SFS Rajouri Apartments,

Mayapuri,

New Delhi – 110064.

Through S.S. Batra.

                                                                    ….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) against order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI) New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Execution Case No.04/2017.
2. Brief facts are that a complaint i.e. CC No.297/2010 under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum wherein a prayer was made for delivery of possession of Plot No.115 booked by respondent/complainant with the appellant/OP and for refund of Rs.2,34,984/- which was charged as interest from him and had also prayed for compensation.
3. Appellant/OP had contested the said complaint case and finally it was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 01.12.2016 whereby the aforesaid complaint was allowed and appellant/OP was directed as under:

 

•  

 

If somehow the plot in question has already been sold or possession has been handed over to someone, then under these circumstances, OP -2 shall pay the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.20,07,210/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt deposits and shall also pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.”

 

4. Respondent/complainant had filed execution petition before the District Forum, wherein vide impugned order following directions were issued:

“JD counsel states that JD had parted with the possession however, he is not able to give the details when the possession was given or the date of the possession to the third party. As per order dated 03.04.17, it is clear the JD could not have parted with the possession till the pendency of the complaint or after the final order has been passed. JD has failed to comply with the orders of this Commission. Issue NBW against Mr. Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Managing Director of OP. put up for compliance on 26.07.17.”

 

 

5. Ld. counsel for appellant/OP has submitted that in view of the final order passed in the complaint case, which has already been reproduced above, District Forum ought not have issued NBW against the MD of the appellant/OP in execution petition. It is further submitted that interim order if any passed in CC No.297/2010 had merged with the final order . It is submitted that appellant/OP is still ready to comply with the final order in the complaint case by paying the requisite amount as awarded by the District Forum. It is also submitted that when order dated 03.04.2017 passed in aforesaid execution petition, appellant/OP could not give the necessary details of parting with the possession of subject flat. It is further submitted that plot in question was allotted to third party even prior to filing of complaint case.
6. We have perused the material on record. It appears that District Forum had issued NBW against MD of appellant/OP as appellant/OP did not give requisite details as to when the possession of Plot No.115, which was allotted to respondent/complainant was parted with by the appellant/OP. Counsel for appellant/OP has submitted that the appellant/OP has requisite details and is willing to file the same before the District Forum. It is submitted that necessary details are also placed on record of present appeal at page 73 of the paper-book.
7. In view of above submissions made, the NBW issued against MD of appellant/OP i.e. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Taneja by the District Forum are cancelled.
8. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 04.07.2019. On the said date appellant/OP shall give the necessary details to the Ld. District forum as to when the possession of plot in question was parted with by appellant/OP to enable the Ld. District Forum to examine the feasibility of dealing with the options given in the final order of CC No.297/2010. District Forum shall take into consideration the same and thereafter shall proceed with the execution petition, in accordance with law.
9. In case the compliance is not done by appellant/OP, Ld. District Forum shall be free to pass appropriate order in the matter.
10. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall above have any bearing on the order to be passed by Ld. District Forum in execution petition. Ld. District Forum shall be free to deal with the same in accordance with law.
11. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.      

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)​

PRESIDENT

(Salma Noor)​

MEMBER