IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction - The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) impugning the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in FA number 908 of 2012 against the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (in short, ‘District Forum’) in CC No.1039 of 2009.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant had booked a plot measuring 500 sq. yards with M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure, the present petitioner, in one of their projects named TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. The petitioner had agreed to sell the plot at the rate of Rs.7750 per sq. yard and the allotment was to be made within a period of six months. An amount of Rs.7,75,000 has admittedly been paid on 07.10.2005 followed by another instalment of Rs 3,87,500 on 30.01.2006. However, no allotment of a plot in the name of the respondent/complainant has been made by the petitioner so far. The respondent had issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 19.07.2008 which did not elicit any response from the petitioner herein.

3. The respondent thereafter filed consumer complaint no.1039 of 2009 before the District Forum which allowed the complaint on contest and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant Rs.11,62,500/-. The respondent approached the State Commission in appeal against the order of the District Forum in FA no. 908 of 2012. Vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2016, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the petitioner herein had failed to present evidence to prove their entitlement under their company’s policy to deduct 10% of the deposited amount. The order of the State Commission was as under:—

3. Defence raised by the OP in the learned District Forum was that the complainant had failed to make payment of various instalments in terms of schedule of payment.

4. No schedule of payment has been placed on record by the Ops/respondents. No letter asking for payment off instalments has been relied upon by the Ops. Ld. District Forum held that the OPs were guilty of deficiency in service and passed orders which are impugned. The only grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the deduction to the tune of 10% as referred to in the orders is illegal and unjustified

5. I have given careful thought to the prayer made in the appeal and perused the records.

6. OPs have failed to place on record any material in support of their contention that any policy of the company permitted for deduction of 10% of the amount deposited by the complainant in any eventuality. In these circumstances appeal is allowed and the orders dated 17.04.2012 are modified to the extent that the Ops/ respondents directed to pay to the complainant/appellant an amount of Rs 11,62,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realisation (without any deduction). OPs shall also pay to the complainant/appellant a compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000 for causing inconvenience and harassment to the complainant.

7. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the OPs/ respondents within a period of 45 days from today failing which interest @ 24% per annum shall be levied on the OPs/ respondents on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of 45 days from today.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

4. In the present revision petition the revisionist is before us seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order of the State Commission in FA no.908 of 2012 dated 29.04.2016, a stay on the execution proceedings in EA no. 65 of 2016 before the District Forum and any other order.

5. As per order dated 13.11.2018, the revision petition was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Commission on the ground of delay of 130 days which was not satisfactoril