Order No. 06

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present and files written objection against the Misc. Application.

Perused and considered the Misc. Application dated 17.01.2023 filed by the opposite parties/petitioner along with its objection filed by the complainant.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioner and Ld. Advocate for the complainant in length.

Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties/petitioner submits that the complainant has filed the complaint case by suppressing material facts and has not come before the Commission in clean hands. The complainant failed to pay the demand raised by the opposite parties. So, the opposite parties terminated and/or cancelled the agreement. As the complainant did not comply the terms of the agreement, the opposite parties cannot be forced to hand over the possession of the flat or to cause execution of the document of transfer of the said flat in favor of the complainant. Moreover, after cancellation of the agreement, the opposite parties offered to collect the refundable amount from them. It is further stated that after cancellation of the agreement a third party interest has been created over the said flat. Therefore, the complaint’s application is not maintainable in Law.

In reply, Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that she is a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. She had entered with an agreement with the opposite parties to purchase a flat mentioned in the complaint application and made part payment a sum of Rs. 33,87,899/- (Rupees thirty three lakh eighty seven thousand eight hundred ninety nine) only on different dates to the opposite parties as consideration of the flat. The opposite parties are trying to create a third party interest over the flat. Therefore, she had no other option but to file the case against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service. Therefore, the case is well maintainable in Law.

It is apparent on the face of the record that the objection raised by the opposite parties/petitioner in the Misc. Application alleging the complaint case is not maintainable is to be decided on the touch stone of evidence of both the parties.

It prima facie appears from the material on record that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service provider.

The complainant alleged that the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service. That also is to be decided on the touch stone of the evidence of the both the parties.

Having considered the discussion above, it is crystal clear that the complaint case is well maintainable in law in its present form.

Therefore, the Misc. Application dated 17.01.2023 devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest without cost.