H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

(1)

First Appeal No.: 180/2016

Date of Presentation: 02.06.2016

Date of Decision: 28.11.2016

………………………………………………………………………….

Dr. Smt. Kaushalya Chauhan,

Wife of Shri Brij Chauhan,

Resident of Block No.1, Flat No.4,

Teacher Colony, Summer Hill,

Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

… Appellant.

Versus

Smt. Sushila,

Wife of late Shri Devi Singh,

Resident of Village Chaily,

Summer Hill, Shimla,

District Shimla, H.P.-171 005.

…Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent:

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate

………………………………………………………………..………..

AND

(2)

First Appeal No.: 212/2016

Date of Presentation: 25.06.2016

Date of Decision: 28.11.2016

………………………………………………………………………….

Smt. Sushila,

Wife of late Shri Devi Singh,

Resident of Village Chaily,

Summer Hill, Shimla,

Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P.

.......... Appellant.

Versus

Smt. Kaushalya Chauhan,

Wife of Shri Brij Chauhan,

Resident of Block No.1, Flat No.4,

Teacher Colony, Summer Hill,

Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

.......... Respondent.

……………………………………………………..…………………..

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President

Hon’ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Meena Verma, Member.

Dr. Kaushalya Chauhan Versus Sushila

(F.A. No.180/2016)

&

Sushila Versus Kaushalya Chauhan

(F.A. No.212/2016)

____________________________________________________________________________

2

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Appellant: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent:

Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate.

……………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R:

Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral)

By this common order, we proceed to

dispose of two appeals, one filed by the

complainant and another by the opposite party,

against

the

same

order,

i.e.

order

dated

29.04.2016 passed by learned District Forum,

Shimla, in complaint No.174/2012. The parties

shall, hereinafter, be referred by their status in

the complaint.

2.

Complainant,

Dr.

Smt.

Kaushalya

Chauhan (Appellant in F.A. No.180/2016) filed a

complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party,

Smt. Sushila (Appellant in F.A. No.212/2016)

pleading the following case. Complainant entered

into an agreement with the opposite party on 03^rd

December,2009 for the purchase of a flat. The

agreement provided that the possession of flat

would be delivered to the complainant by 31^st day

1Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Dr. Kaushalya Chauhan Versus Sushila

(F.A. No.180/2016)

&

Sushila Versus Kaushalya Chauhan

(F.A. No.212/2016)

____________________________________________________________________________

3

of May,2010. Flat was not ready by the time its

possession was agreed to be delivered and,

therefore, a fresh agreement was executed on

15^th day of April,2011, which provided that

possession would be delivered by 15^th May,2011.

Flat was not ready for delivery of possession even

by that date and, therefore, another agreement

was executed on 02^nd June,2012. This agreement

provided for delivery of possession by 15^th

July,2011. Possession was not delivered even on

15^th July,2011. It was delivered on 24^th October

2011, when the sale deed was registered.

According to the complainant, because of delay in

delivery of possession, she suffered financial loss,

as she had to reside in rented accommodation.

3.

Another

allegation,

which

the

complainant made was that the opposite party

had agreed to furnish the flat, for which an

additional amount of `50,000/- had been charged,

but no furnishing was provided. Also, it was

alleged that at the time of delivery of possession,

No Objection Certificate was required to be

delivered, as per terms & conditions of the

agreement. The certificate was required to be

Dr. Kaushalya Chauhan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document