Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/488

M2K INFRA. PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VAJAK SAHRAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision:09.11.2016

First Appeal No. 488/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 05.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 1177/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumVI, ‘M’ Block, 1^st Floor, VikasBhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

E-13/29, 1^stFloroHarshaBhawan

Connaught Circle

New Delhi-110001                                            .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Mr. Vijay Sahrawat

S/o RajveerSahrawat

R/o 301, Type IV, Multy

Storey Flats, MotiBagh

Delhi-110021                                                  ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

1.     Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI VikasBhawan New Delhi-110001. Vide impugned orders, Ld. District Forum passed the following directions:

“In our considered view complainant was entitled to return of his deposits as on date of legal notice 21.03.2009, after deducting of 15% of the deposits and of the admitted charges of brokerage, if applicable. The OP has kept his money payable from 21.03.2009 till today. In the circumstances, we direct OP to return his deposits after deducting 15% of amount, and brokerage if applicable, and pay interest on the said sum at the rate of 9% from 21.03.2009 till payment. OP would also pay litigation expenses and damages for deficiency in not itself returning the money as per agreement, immediately on receipt of legal notice, requesting refund of cancellation. We award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for this deficiency and harassment and litigation expenses.”

 

2.     Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. VijaySahrawat booked a flat with the OP in one of its residential complexes at Daruheda known as M2K ‘Counti Heights’. A ‘flat buyers’ agreement’ was signed between the parties on 21.01.2008. Flat in question was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 3 years from the date of start of construction. Complainant had admittedly paid in all an amount of Rs. 9,44,775/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP Ms. MehekTaneja Advocate submitted that the construction at the site started only in October 2009 and accordingly flat was required to be handed over before October 2012. Be that as it may, admittedly the flat in question was not ready for occupation by the complainant even by October 2012. Contention of the appellant/OP is that the respondent/complainant committed defaults in making payments of various installments. There is no letter of cancellation of allotment placed on record. It does not now lie in the mouth of the appellant/OP that the project got delayed due to non-payment of installments by the complainant. No reasons have given by the appellant/OP in its written version filed before the Ld. District Forum for the delay in handing over the physical possession of the flats to the buyers. Appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits.
3.     Before parting it may be mentioned here that the appellant has filed an application dated 18.12.2012 seeking grant of status quo ante in his favour. Appellant/applicant submitted that the Ld. District Forum heard final arguments in the matter on 15.11.2011 and the matter was listed for pronouncement of the judgment on 15.12.2011. It was not so done. Matter was reserved for orders. Suddenly on 01.05.2012, the appellant received notice in execution No. 92/2012 for appearing on 30.04.2012. Appellant was not aware of the orders dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum against it. Ld. Counsel filed an application for initiating enquiry against the employee of the forum. File was not traceable thereafter. In the meantime, appellant filed the present appeal on 01.06.2012. On 11.06.2012 Ld. District Forum directed for the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 10,89,984/-.On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,appellant/applicant prays for directions against the respondent/complainant to deposit the amount received by him by way of adjustment.
4.     Perusal of the appeal proceedings shows that no stay against the impugned orders was ever granted in favour of the appellant/applicant by this Commission. In the absence of any such orders, the Ld. District Forum was right in going ahead with the execution proceedings. Any objection relating the calculation of the decretal amount ought have been raised by the appellant beforethe Ld. District Forum. Application dated 18.12.2012 is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is however at liberty to move the executing court in case of any objection on the calculation of the decretal amount. It is however made clear that this Commission has not interferedwith the orders of the adjustment or the realization of any amount by the complainant so far. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
5.     Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL