GOLDEN BRICKS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Sec. Sec. 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dtd. 24/1/2023 of the State Commission in Appeal no. 597 of 2022 arising out of the Order dtd. 26/8/2022 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 08 of 2020.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case have been succinctly captured by the State Commission in para 3 of its impugned Order, which are being reproduced below for reference: The brief facts evolve from the complaint are that the Ops No. 1 & 2 are builders and OP No. 3 was their agent. Complainant wanted to purchase a 2BHK flat, so he paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 on 8/4/2013 as first instalment and this is how in all a total amount of 10,41,312/- was paid to the Ops on different dates. Ops assured him that the flat in question complete in all respects will be hand over to him within a period of 3 ' years when he paid first instalment. It was alleged that he visited the site of OPs in the months of November 2016 but found that construction work had not even been started at the site and position was again the same in the month of April,2018. Thereafter, he requested Ops to refund his deposited amount, but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops, he filed this complaint.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission which also met the same fate and was dismissed vide its impugned Order dtd. 24/1/2023 which reads as follows: From the record it emerges that respondent No. 1-complanant booked a residential unit of 2 BHK on 08.04.20213, in the project of appellant's by paying an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 and in all paid an amount of Rs.10,41,312.00 to the appellants. It is also admitted case of the appellants that the construction work of the project has not been completed so far despite there being an agreement executed between the parties and in the alternative the appellants have failed to refund the deposited amount to complainant. The OPs-present appellants were responsible for negligence and deficiency in service rendered by them to the complainant-respondent No. 1 and as such, while allowing the complaint vide order dtd. 26/8/2022, no illegality was committed by the learned District Commission, Panipat. Resultantly, present appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limini. The present Revision Petition has been now in challenge to the impugned Order dtd. 24/1/2023.