State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S M Tech Developers Limited vs Smt. Ratan Yadav W/O S.S.Yadav on 16 March, 2016
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 734 /2015 M/s. M.Tech Developers Ltd., ANS House, 144/2 Ashram Mathura Road, New Delhi & ors. Vs. Smt.Ratan Yadav w/o SS Yadav r/o House No. 197 Sector 14 Gurgaon Date of Order 16.3.2016 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member
Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellants Mr.Kishore Gaur counsel for the respondent 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Alwar dated 28.5.2015 .
The contention of the appellant is that the complaint is barred by limitation. Admittedly the villa was booked on 12.10.2006 and within three years possession of the villa was to be handed over to the consumer but this complaint has been filed in the year 2013 which is barred by limitation and other contention of the appellant is that interest payable is on higher side and it should have been ordered from the date of the complaint.
The contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.
As regard to the limitation, the contention of the appellant himself was that in January 2012 he has published the 3 information that persons who wish to get refund of their money may do so and on the above advertisement the complainant respondent has filed the complaint. Hence, where the appellant himself is relying on the publication in the newspaper for the respondent, the limitation will start from January 2012 and the complaint could not be treated as time barred and the contention of the appellant is not sustainable.
The other contention of the appellant is that respondent never contacted him after 2006 and he came straight way to the court. In 2008 he has not asked for the money to re-pay. Hence, the Forum below should have allowed the interest from the date of complaint.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that money has been used by the appellant hence, interest has rightly been allowed.
The contention of the counsel for the appellant sound good as after the year 2006 no effort has been made by the respondent to have the possession of the property or to get his money back. He has came before the Forum below on 25.6.2013.4
Hence, the appeal is partially allowed and the order of the Forum below as regard to the date of payment of interest which is 14.2.2007 is amended to the date of presentation of complaint i.e. 25.6.2013.
(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm