IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 02.08.2024 Date of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 REVISION PETITION NO.36/2024 IN THE MATTER OF UDAI RAJ DUBEY DD1/3, JEEWAN JYOTI APARTMENTS PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI -110034.

…PETITIONER (APPELLANT IN PERSON)

VERSUS

1. AVTAAR KENDRIYA GREH HOUSING WELFARE SOCIETY C/O MR. DEEPAK MOHAN B-102, PLOT NO.10, SHREE KRISHNA APARTMENT SECTOR -5, DWARKA, DELHI -110075.

2. MR. DEEPAK MOHAN B-102, PLOT NO.10, SHREE KRISHNA APARTMENT SECTOR -5, DWARKA, DELHI -110075.

…..RESPONDENTS CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the District Commission, North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in CC No.129/2024, whereby the review application filed by the Petitioner seeking review of the order dated 12.03.2024 has been dismissed, the Petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 12.03.2024, the complaint filed by Petitioner u/s 35(1) of the Act was dismissed being barred by limitation. Subsequent to this the Petitioner filed a review application under Section 40 of the Act seeking review of the order dated 12.03.2024, which was dismissed by the Ld. District Commission vide impugned order dated 06.05.2024 holding that there is no error apparent on record.

3. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 12.03.2024. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to briefly mention the facts of the complaint filed before the District Commission. Facts are per District Commission are as under:

1. A complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that Complainant booked one 2 BHK flat with OP-1 on the pursuation of OP -2 and paid a sum of Rs.3,71,000/- against which the OP -2 issued the receipt in the name of OP-1 dated 03.03.2014. At the time of booking OP- 2 promised to give the ownership documents as well as other requisite documents before making payment of installments. Complainant asked OP to provide the relevant documents but under one pretext or other OP- 2 postponed the issue. Finally vide letter dated 03.09.2015 complainant asked OPs to provide the ownership documents or to refund the entire amount paid by her with interest @18% p.a.

2. It is further alleged by the Complainant that after her continuous follow up finally OP-2 issued some cheques from his own account as well as from the account of OP-1 with the following dates 03.05.2016, 17.01.2017, 24.01.2017, 04.03.2019, 28.02.2019 and 24.11.2019 for refund the payments received by him against the aforesaid booking, however, the entire cheques issued by OPs stand bounce due to insufficient funds. As such complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with Ld. M.M. Tis Hazari. It is further alleged by the Complainant that during trial before Ld. M.M. OP-2 admitted the liability and deposited certain amount in the bank of the complainant jointly held with her husband during the pendency of the proceedings. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 08.07.2023, Ld. MM passed the order thereby making various wrong observation imputing to the complainant and as such the RP was filed against the order dated 08.07.2023 which was duly allowed by Ld. ADJ and the order dated 08.07.2023 was set aside vide order dated 26.08.2023.

3. It is further alleged by the complainant that after the order dated 08.07.2023 OPs stopped making payment as such complainant served legal notice dated

13.07.2023 OPs neither replied the legal notice nor had paid the balance amount this act of OPs squarely covered under the definition of deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the mat