National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. B. M. Gandhi vs M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 930 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 10/12/2019 in Appeal No. 218/2015 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. DR. B. M. GANDHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M. TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate. For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Nov 2020 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)
A consumer complaint was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent company. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 10.10.2013 passed in case number 228 of 2012. The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as under:-
"In the circumstances, we hold that respondent to be guilty of deficiency in service and direct them to pay damages to the complainant @ Rs.25000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.01.2011 in view of clause 7 of the agreement dated 03.02.10 and in this way amount payable by them till filing of the complaint i.e. upto May 2012 shall be Rs. 4,25,000/-. The respondent shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 25000/- p.m. as per the agreed terms for further period of delay also till delivery of possession of the villa. The respondent shall also pay Rs. 4000/- to him towards cost of litigation. Let the order to be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly."
2. An appeal was preferred by the respondent against the order passed by the District Forum. Since there was a delay in institution of the appeal, an application seeking condonation of the said delay was filed by the respondent. Vide its order dated 01.06.2018 passed in FA No. 218 of 2015 the State Commission declined to condone the delay in institution of the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. The order passed by the State Commission was challenged by way of Revision Petition No. 1966 of 2019 but the Revision Petition was withdrawn on 11.03.2020.
3. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with the State Commission during pendency of its appeal in compliance of an interim order passed by the State Commission on 20.05.2015. The petitioner filed an application before the State Commission for release of the amount which the respondent had deposited. Notice of that application was issued to the respondent but was not received back. The State Commission declined to release the FDR deposited by the respondent in favour of the petitioner observing that it was not certain whether the order passed by the State Commission had been challenged by the respondent or not. Being aggrieved the petitioner/ complainant is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
4. In my opinion, the State Commission ought to have released the FDR to the complainant petitioner if the order passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint, which had become final on account of the appeal of the respondent having been dismissed by the State Commission and the revision petition filed by the respondent having been withdrawn, had not been complied.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Revision Petition is disposed of with the direction that to the extent the petitioner has not been paid in terms of the order passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint the amount it of the FDR which the respondent had deposited with the State Commission shall be released to the complainant. The balance amount, if any, shall be released to the respondent. The petitioner shell file affidavit before the State Commission within 2 weeks from today stating therein that there was no legal impediment in release of the aforesaid amount to the complainant/ petitioner and the State Commission shall comply with this order on filing of such an affidavit.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER