LAWS(NCD)-2022-11-65

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD Vs. UMA SHANKAR TRIVEDI

Decided On November 01, 2022
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD Appellant
V/S
Uma Shankar Trivedi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA/251/2021 is filed by the Respondents/Complainants against the order passed by this Commission dtd. 1/10/2021 in Review Application No.224/2019 in First Appeal No.1416/2016 whereby this Commission modified the order dtd. 13/2/2019 with following observation: -

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainants/Respondents have filed the instant miscellaneous application.

(3.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties as well as Respondent No.1 in person and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the impugned order dtd. 1/10/2021 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the submissions of the Applicants were not recorded in the order. This Commission, vide impugned order dtd. 1/10/2021, disposed of Review Application and modified the judgment dtd. 13/2/2019, despite there being no error apparent on the face of record and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction of Review. It was also submitted that while modifying the judgment dtd. 13/2/2019, this Commission failed to appreciate that the Complainants had already purchased another property and living in the said property since 2018. The Complainants, therefore, could not be forced to purchase second property. While modifying the judgment dtd. 13/2/2019, this Commission also failed to appreciate that the Complainants sought refund of the amount deposited by them, which was also granted by this Commission, vide judgment dtd. 13/2/2019. This Commission incorrectly observed that the Complainants had given a wrong impression to this Commission at the time of final hearing of FA/1416/2016 that they had purchased another accommodation and did not require the property booked with the Opposite Party. The Complainants purchased another property when they realised that there was delay in delivery of possession by the Opposite Party. It was also submitted that there was delay of 155 days in filing the Review Application and this Commission suo motu condoned the said delay, which was not justified.