State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Carnation Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinay Kumar Yadav S/O Shiv Ram Yadav on 17 January, 2018
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 1368/2017 Carnation Developers Pvt.Ltd. Krish City Heights, Bhiwadi 222 223 Main Building through Managing Director & ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar Yadav s/o Shivram Yadav r/o 1230-A/31 Gali no. 6, Laxman Vihar, Phase I, Gurgaon Haryana & ors. Date of Order 17.1.2018 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mr. Rajendra Salecha counsel for the appellant BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal has been filed against the order passed by 2 the District Forum, Alwar dated 22.6.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal is filed with delay of 145 days and the contention of the appellant is that order was passed on 22.6.2017. Thereafter it required discussion among directors and at different levels a situation arose where the present appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. Thus, the bare reading of the application goes to show that application is submitted in cursory manner. No reasons are being assigned for the significant delay of 145 days. Hence the appeal should have been dismissed on the above ground only.
The merits of the case has also been considered.
Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
The contention of the appellant is that as per condition no. 11 the consumer was allowed to surrender allotment only within a period of six months from the date of allotment and 3 allotment was made on 10.7.2014. Hence, he was not entitled for surrender of the allotment and the claim should have been dismissed.
It is true that if a consumer wants to surrender the allotment clause 11 will apply but here in the present case the consumer was not intended to surrender the allotment. Per contra he was forced to withdrawal from the scheme as the possession of flat was not handed over to him as per condition 19 of the agreement. It is admitted case between the parties that within a period of 36 months the possession of the property was to be handed over to the consumer which was not done by the appellants.
The other contention of the appellants is that there was a clause of force majeure agreed between the parties and as the environmental clearance could be obtained in March 2016 the clause force majeure would operate but the Forum below has rightly held that clearance certificate which has been submitted is not in relation to the present project, condition 4 no. 19 has not been fulfilled and claim has rightly been allowed.
Hence, in view of the above there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed on merits as well as on ground of delay.
(Nisha Gupta) President nm