Case nº Revision Petition No. 1839/ 1840 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 30/12/2011 in Appeal No. 290/2010 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 09, 2013 (case 1. A. Balasubramaniam 2. M. Vasudevan Vs Macro Marvel Projects Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate |
| President | Mr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member |
| Resolution Date | July 09, 2013 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
J. M. Malik, Presidinig Member (Oral)
-
This common order shall decide the abovesaid two revision petitions which have similar facts and question of law.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has invited our attention towards clause 4 of the Agreement, which is reproduced as follow.
"4. The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART should settle the entire dues to the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART inclusive of the cost of any additional work done in the schedule "C'' and on such settlement only possession of constructed house as mentioned in schedule ''C'' will be given to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PARTY by the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART.The grievance of both the complainants is that additional area was given to them and the opposite party had charged an extra sum of Rs.64,000/- each.
-
Aggrieved by that order, the complainants have filed separate complaints before the District Forum. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the District Forum awarded Rs.50,000/- refund to each of the complainants. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party filed first appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission reduced the said amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. The present revision petitions were filed by the complainants/petitioners for enhancement of refund amount.
-
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of admission of these revision petitions. He submits that each of the complainants got additional built up area to the extent of 156 sq. ft. He contended that they should be granted at least Rs.50,000/- each as ordered by the District Forum. The opposite party was bound to give area as per above said agreement. If it has given additional area, it has given at its own peril and for that purpose, the opposite party cannot demand extra money from the complainants.
-
We see no force in these faint...
To continue reading
Request your trial