RITU SACHDEVA & ANR. vs M/S. UNITECH LTD. & ANR.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complt. No. CC/218/12 - Ritu Sachdeva & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was disposed of, as settled.

Brief facts of the case are that complainants/appellants are transferee allottees of Flat No. 1201, 12 th Floor, 3 rd Tower, at Fresco Nirvana Country, Sector 50, Gurgaon, Haryana developed by OPs/respondents and complainants made payment of Rs.51,47,240/- against total sale consideration of Rs. 53,66,103/-. Possession of flat was to be delivered in June, 2008, but so far possession has not been delivered. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint with prayer to handover possession along with interest and compensation. OP resisted complaint and submitted that allotment of flat taken by complainants for commercial purpose and State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, denied allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

During pendency of proceedings, as per State Commission''s order, possession of flat was handed over by OP to complainant on 12.5.2014 and conveyance deed was executed on 27.7.2014 on payment of balance amount by complainant and OP also paid penalty of Rs. 65,900/- to the complainant and in such circumstances, complaint was disposed of, as settled against which, this appeal has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that possession was handed over in October, 2014 and no penalty amount has been paid by OP to complainant and learned State Commission has not considered other aspects and has committed illegality in disposing of complaint without finding on other prayers; hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

In impugned order, it has been mentioned that possession was handed over on 12.5.2014 whereas learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that possession of flat was handed over in October, 2014. In similar way, it has been mentioned in the order that penalty amount Rs.6,55,900/- has been paid by OP to complainant before handing over possession of the flat whereas learned Counsel for appellant denied this fact. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not show any document which depicts that possession was handed over in May, 2014 and penalty amount was paid by OP to the complainant before handing over possession. In such circumstances, it can be observed that impugned order is not speaking order and not based on correct facts and learned State Commission committed error in disposing complaint without considering other prayers made in the complaint; hence, matter has to be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide complaint afresh by a speaking order after considering all the deficiencies alleged in the complaint.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the learned State Commission in Complt. No. CC/218/12 - Ritu Sachdeva & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide complaint afresh by speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 19.01.2017.