Case nº First Appeal No. 441 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 17/03/2015 in Complaint No. 74/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 24, 2016 (case 1. Daljit Singh and Anr. 2. Mr. Mani Karan Singh Vs Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Dhruv Kapur and Mr. Siddharth Bhatia, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Bahri, Adv. with Mr. Ajit Rathee, A.R.
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 24, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complaint Case No. C-74/2011 - Daljit Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant / appellant booked a shop with the OP Universal Buildwell/respondent measuring 350 sq. ft. on the ground floor of their project located at Golf Course Road Extension Sector 59 Gurgaon. The complainant paid in all an amount of Rs. 6 Lac to the OP on May 2010. Shop bearing No G-63, was provisionally allotted to the complainants on 01.06.2010. Buryers' agreement dt. 25.07.2010 was executed between the parties. Grievance of the complainants is that they did not receive the 'buyers' agreement' till July 2010. They however, received a letter of demand from the OPs demanding an amount of Rs. 2,70,975/- (Approx.). Despite several visits to the office of the OP, the complainants were not given any satisfactory reply. OPs state they cancelled the booking of the complainants. The complainants sent a legal notice dt. 31.01.2011 calling upon the OPs to withdraw their letter of cancellation and accept the outstanding dues. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint, denied any deficiency and submitted that complainant has concealed material facts and complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-rejoinder of parties and further submitted that Civil Court should decide the matter or matter should be referred to Arbitration. It was further submitted that complainant failed to make payment inspite of reminders and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing parties, dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed.

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

  4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of no plea regarding...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT