SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission dtd. 20/2/2018 in Complaint No. 155 of 2017 of State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby State Commission had directed the Appellant to hand over the possession of the subject property after the respondent / complainant depositing the balance payable amount along with other directions regarding delay in delivery of the possession.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged by the Appellant solely on the ground that relief granted by the State Commission was not asked for by the respondent since in the complaint, complainant has asked for refund of the deposited money on account of delay in handing over of the possession and even in his affidavit, he had prayed for the refund of the deposited money along with interest. It is submitted that Appellant had already deposited the principal amount with the State Commission on 18/12/2018 pursuant to the order of this Commission dtd. 1/11/2018, whereby operation of the impugned order had been stayed. It is submitted that Appellant is ready to refund the entire amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the due date of delivery of possession till payment. It is submitted that impugned order suffers with perversity and illegality and, therefore liable to be set aside.

(3.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that al-though in the complaint, complainant had asked for refund of its entire amount due to delay in delivery of possession and also in the affidavit he had asked for the refund yet at the time of final arguments, it had shown his inclination to take the possession of the subject flat and based on that, the impugned order had been passed. It is further submitted that Appellant in its written version had challenged the refund of the money deposited and had made offer of possession.