UPENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. VIRAJ CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') is directed against the order dtd. 17/12/2018 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the 'State Commission') in complaint case no. 399/2016 partly allowing the complaint and directing the respondent/opposite party to

(2.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was allotted Unit No. 1002, 10th Floor, Block Sunbreeze, Tower T 11, BBD Green City, Faizabad Road, Lucknow admeasuring 158.40 sq m on 12/10/2012 at a sale consideration of Rs.44,23,300.00 to be paid as per a payment schedule. Possession was promised in 30 months from the date of allotment, i.e. by 12/4/2015. Respondent failed to provide possession inspite of deposits by the appellant with interest for delays in payments. Appellant filed a complaint (CC No. 399 of 2016) before the State Commission praying for handing over the finished flat immediately, Rs.20.00 lakhs compensation for deficiency in service with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of possession, Rs.15,000.00 per month towards rental expenses incurred and Rs.5.00 lakhs for mental harassment which came to be decided by way of the impugned order. A demand for Rs.8,60,356.00 was issued by the respondent during the pendency of the complaint on 9/3/2018 and Rs.8,46857.00 was deposited on 10/4/2018 by the appellant. Appellant submits that he was made to sign papers which included, without his knowledge, a letter waiving claims for interest and compensation, etc which was filed before the State Commission. The appellant contends that the impugned order erred in relying on this undertaking. The order of the State Commission is assailed on the grounds that (i) respondent had admitted delay in execution of the project and had not handed over possession within the time of 30 months as promised; (ii) appellant had paid interest on delayed payments and was therefore not a defaulter; (iii) the State Commission failed to appreciate that the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act was to safeguard the interest of the consumer and that being a consumer; (iv) the order was not a judicious and reasoned order as it did not award compensation for delayed possession; and (v) the respondent had waived interest of Rs.20,138.00 vide its letter dtd. 9/4/2018.