NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Hemraj and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.258 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 02/02/2018 in Complaint No. 663/2017 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 5.7.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant is silent on the question of completion certificate as well as allotment of stilt parking to Complainants which proves deficiency of service on its part.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt. 02.02.2018 of the State Commission – Respondents applied for allotment of a flat for a consideration of Rs.34,03,242/- - Occupancy Certificate not obtained by Appellant, but possession was given with a delay of 48 months on misrepresentation that all approvals and clearances have been taken - State Commission proceeded ex-parte against Appellant and gave its judgment with direction to deliver completion certificate to Respondents along with paying interest@12% p.a. on deposited amt. and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation costs – Deficiency of service on part of Appellant - On one hand, Appellant stated that it was aware of proceedings before State Commission, on the other hand, Appellant stated that it was unaware of proceedings before the State Commission - Appellant cannot blow both hot and cold at the same time - Appellant is silent on the question of completion certificate as well as allotment of stilt parking to Complainants - Appellant admitted that possession was to be handed over within 15 months from date of booking but possession was given after expiry of 48 months from the date of booking.

Held: The Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the notice issued by the State Commission was not received by the Appellant. The State Commission, in the order dated 04.12.2017 recorded that “Neither registered cover has been received back nor AD has been received.” However, the State Commission preceded ex-parte against the Appellant only on the basis of presumption and apprehension. He submitted that the State Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as the Appellant was denied the right of being heard. He requested that the matter be remanded to the State Commission for deciding the Complaint afresh on merits.

In para 3m the Appellant stated that “the Petitioner being absolutely unaware of the proceedings conducted before the State Commission could not have imagined that such directions will be passed against the Petitioner.” Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he was not aware of the proceedings conducted before the State Commission. On the other hand, in para 3e Appellant stated that “the Petitioner herein also filed its reply to the Complaint filed before the Consumer Forum by the Respondent, but the Complaint was disposed off by the Ld. Consumer Forum vide order dated 08.03.2017, without going into the merits of the case.” On the one hand Appellant stated that it was aware of the proceedings before the State Commission. On the other hand, he stated that he was unaware of the proceedings before the State Commission. Appellant cannot blow both hot and cold at the same time.

The Appellant has not pleaded anything on the merits of the case. Even in the Appeal it has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded to the State Commission for fresh disposal of the Complaint. In para 3a of the Appeal, Appellant/Opposite Party had admitted that the Complainants have made the payments as stated in the Complaint. It had also admitted that possession was offered to the Complainants on 24.04.2014. State Commission after going through the record rightly held that the Opposite Party was deficient in service in giving delayed possession to the Complainants. Appellant/Opposite Party is also silent on the question of completion certificate as well as allotment of stilt parking to the Complainants. State Commission recorded that the Complainant had proved in evidence and Opposite Party also admitted that the possession was to be handed over within 15 months from the date of booking. The Opposite Party delivered the possession after expiry of 48 months from the date of booking. State Commission observed that Ext.C-1 was an email regarding booking of the flat which defined that covered parking will also be allotted to the Complainants. Appellant/Opposite Party also did not file any document to prove that necessary approvals or completion certificate had been obtained by it. Since the allegations of the Complainant remained unrebutted by the Opposite Party before the State Commission and even in the Appeal the Opposite Party did not plead anything on merits of the case, I find no reason to disagree with the order of the State Commission. (Paras 6, 8 & 9)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed