National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dlf Homes Panchkula Private Limited vs Lt. Col. D. P. S. Yadav & Anr. on 11 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 11/03/2016 in Complaint No. 55/2016 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PRIVATE LIMITED REGD. OFFICE DLF GATEWAY TOWER, SECOND FLOOR, DLF CITY, GURGAON-122002 HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. LT. COL. D. P. S. YADAV & ANR. S/O. SH. RISAL SINGH YADAV, R/O. HOUSE NO. 493, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA HARYANA 2. RACHNA YADAV W/O. LTD. COL D.P.S. YADAV, R/O. HOUSE NO. 493, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA, HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate with Ms. Seema Sundd, Advocate Mr. Akarshan Shay, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate Dated : 11 Apr 2016 ORDER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. This order will decide all the three appeals which entail the similar questions of facts and law.
2. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants wants to file the affidavit. The request is declined because this short matter has already taken three dates. If the affidavit was to be filed, it should have accompanied the appeals. There is short controversy and the Commission has wasted its precious time on three occasions.
4. The short controversy involved in this case is that the three illegal different demands in the above said three separate appeals were raised for Rs.9,15,514/- in FA No. 267 of 2016, Rs.7,31,350/- in FA No. 268 of 2016 and Rs.9,76,114/- in FA No. 269 of 2016.
5. The State Commission ordered that these demands be deferred and the possession be given to the complainants immediately.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no such prayer and the order was passed by the State Commission on its own accord. Written versions were yet to be filed when the impugned order was passed. It is further contended that demands are being made in terms of the -4- agreement. These are Extra Development Charges, and more amount Increasing Salable Area, Service Tax, Other Charges, Electricity, Water Charges, Sewerage Charges, Interest Bearing Maintenance Charges, Stamp Duty, Registration Charges and Club Charges.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is delay of as many as three years in delivery of possession. They have not given the delay charges as stipulated in the agreement.
8. Consequently, we hereby direct the complainant to deposit the amount in dispute with the State Commission within 30 days from today. The said amount be kept in short term FDR and the State Commission will have the full authority to decide it as to which of the parties, is entitled to that, as per law. It is, too, early to speak our piece on this matter at this stage.
9. Subject to that, the possession be given immediately. However, it is stated that possession cannot be given in absence of the said prayer. The prayer of the possession has been made in the complaint itself. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the authorities reported in M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rakeshwar Dayal Seth, Revision Petition No. 1303 of 2012 decided on 29.8.2012 by this -5- Commission and Bank of Baroda vs. Ranjeet Singh IV (2012) CPJ 397 (NC).
10. These authorities are not applicable to this case. Rest of the order passed by the State Commission regarding the possession is hereby affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on the date already fixed. The State Commission is further requested to decide the matter expeditiously.
11. All the three appeal are disposed of accordingly.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER