Case nº First Appeal No. 349 Of 2013, (Against the Order dated 14/02/2013 in Complaint No. 339/2012 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, July 24, 2015 (case 1. Anil Kumar Tarachand Jain and Ors. 2. Chandrakumar Tarachand Jain Vs Swan Mills Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Bineesh K., Proxy Counsel and For Respondents: Mr.Aman Varma , Advocate |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | July 24, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
-
This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/12/339 -- Anilkumar Tarachand Jain Ors. Vs. M/s. Swan Mills Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed.
-
Brief facts of the case are that complainants/appellants purchased Apartment No. 1501 from OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.84,82,250/- vide agreement for sale dated 15.6.2007. Total sale consideration was paid. As per agreement, possession was to be given on 31.3.2009 whereas; possession was given on 4.2.2011 after delay of about 22 months. It was further submitted that as per clause 7 of the agreement, OP was liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for delayed period and inspite of repeated requests, interest has not been paid. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before State Commission which was dismissed by learned State Commission at initial stage.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
-
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of proof of delayed possession and clause 7 providing payment of interest on account of delayed delivery of possession, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint at initial stage, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to proceed in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as no protest was made for a period of about 18 months, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
-
Perusal of record reveals that as per agreement dated 15.6.2007, possession was to be given by OP on or before 31.3.2009 with six months grace period whereas possession was given on 4.2.2011 meaning thereby, there was delay of about 22 months in giving possession. As per clause 7 (1) of the agreement, OP was liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for delayed period of delivering possession subject to some exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial