SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2019
 
(Against the Order dated 13/11/2018 in Complaint No. 410/2017 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.
JAYPEE GREENS SECTOR 128
NOIDA 201301
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. RAJAT KHURANA
R/O. DA 103/F, HARI NAGAR
DELHI
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Tenzen Negi, Advocate
: Mr. Paras Chaudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Kaushik Advocate
: Ms. Pallavi, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Tanuj Dogra, Advocate

Dated : 26 Sep 2022
ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the respondent.  Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate argued as an intervener, on legal issue.

2.      Jaiprakash Associates Limited (the opposite party) has filed above appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dated 13.11.2018, passed in CC/410/2017, partly allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.10000/- and directing the appellant to return Rs.2562000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment.

3.      The office has reported 124 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed IA/7561/2019, for condonation of delay. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.      Rajat Khurana (the respondent) filed CC/410/2017 for directing Jaiprakash Associates Limited (the appellant) (i) to refund Rs.2562000/- with interest @18% per annum; (ii) to pay the complainant the entire amount of house rent borne by the complainant, amounting to Rs.25000/- per month from expiry of grace period till the date of actual realization; (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.250000/- to the complainant as litigation costs and compensation of Rs.1000000/-;  and (vii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

5.      The complainant stated that Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (opposite party) (hereinafter referred to as the builder) was a company, registered under Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of developing and constructing group housing project. They launched a group housing project in the name of “Kosmos” at Jaypee Greens, Sector-128, Noida and made wide publicity in the year 2010.  Allured with lucrative advertisements and believing on it, the complainant applied for a flat and deposited the required money of Rs.1.5/- lacs on 15.12.2010. The builder provisionally allotted Unit No.-KM0046-1702, Basic Sale Price of Rs.2655650/- on 28.01.2011. Under the allotment letter dated 28.01.2011, the builder assured to deliver possession within 36 months from the date of allotment. The builder provided subvention scheme, under which, loan was advanced from Axis Bank Limited. A quadripartite agreement was executed between the parties in July, 2011 and Axis Bank Limited directly advanced Rs.2281613/- on 11.07.2011 to the builder. The complainant paid Rs.2562000/- till 28.05.2012. The period of 36 months expired on 28.01.2014 and grace period of 180 days as given under Clause-7.2 of Standard Terms and Condition also expired on 28.07.2014. The builder did not give any information regarding progress of the construction nor offered possession till then and paid delayed compensation as per Clause-7.2. The complainant inquired about date of delivery possession. Then the builder vide letter dated 09.09.2014, regretted for delay in possession and informe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top