State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Stanford Developers Through Partner ... vs Deep Singh S/O Banjar Singh on 22 March, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 214/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Rajendra Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 215/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Deep Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 216/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Amarjeet Singh 2 FIRST APPEAL NO: 217/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Shetrapal FIRST APPEAL NO: 218/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Umrao Lal FIRST APPEAL NO: 219/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Gulab Singh 3 FIRST APPEAL NO: 220/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Jangir Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 221/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Sonaram FIRST APPEAL NO: 222/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Sukhvinder 4 FIRST APPEAL NO: 223/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Manjit Kaur FIRST APPEAL NO: 224/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Kulwant Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 225/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Vidya Bai 5 FIRST APPEAL NO: 234/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Tara Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 235/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Mahendra Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 236/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Sukhvinder 6 FIRST APPEAL NO: 237/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Mahendra Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 238/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Balwant Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 239/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Deep Singh 7 FIRST APPEAL NO: 240/ 2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Amarjeet Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 241/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Sharmila FIRST APPEAL NO: 242/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Parvinder 8 FIRST APPEAL NO: 243/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Tara Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 244/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Daleep Singh FIRST APPEAL NO: 245/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Amarjeet Singh 9 FIRST APPEAL NO: 246/2017 Stanford Developers, 101, 102, 1st floor, Tower-A, Spazes Commercial Centre, Sector 47, Sona Road, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana Vs. Jangir Singh Date of Order 22.3.2017 Before:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member Mr. Pankaj Khanna counsel for the appellants BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
These appeals are filed against the similar orders hence, 10 are decided by this common order. The facts are taken from Appeal No. 237/2017 stands for Mahendra Singh.
The contention of the appellants is that layout plan was not approved by the Government hence, the project was delayed. Now the lease deed has been executed in their favour and permission for construction has also been accorded. The construction is going on hence, no deficiency of service has been committed by them and the order of the Forum below should have been set aside.
Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
There is no dispute about the fact that the consumer Mahendra Singh has applied for allotment of a house and Rs. 2 lakhs were paid as first instalment on 25th March 2014 and thereafter in total he has deposited Rs. 3,20,000/- till 7.7.2014 but inspite of payment of money the construction has not been started. Hence, the complainant respondent asked for re-payment of money alongwith interest and original complaint has been filed.11
The appellant has not disputed the fact that the impugned money was deposited by the respondent. His only contention is with regard to condition no. 14 of the agreement which speaks that if the project is delayed due to order, rule or notification of the Government then the builder would not be liable.
There is no dispute about the fact that such condition was entered into between the parties but here in the present case nothing has been brought on record which shows that due to any order of the Government the project was get delayed. It is also not in dispute that possession of the apartment was to be handed over within 36 months which has not been done and appellant himself has submitted lease deed executed in their favour on 14.9.2015 which speaks that on the day of payment of the money by the consumer even the land was not available with the appellant and permission for construction was accorded to them on 24.2.2016 vide Anx. 3. Hence, these facts clearly establish not only deficiency on the part of the appellant but also unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant.12
Hence,in view of the above, there is no merit in these appeals not worth admission and stand rejected.
(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President nm