M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. 15 UGF INDRA PRAKASH , 21 BRAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI Vs. INDIAN MACHINERY CO. 1508 FARASH KHANA G.B ROAD, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.03.2013, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 800/2009, "M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. M/s. Indian Machinery Co." vide which, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the order dated 1.10.2009, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint no. 967/2007, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/builder floated a housing scheme on the land allotted to them by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) at Tronica City, Ghaziabad in which a plot measuring 359 sq. yard, bearing no. C/C-287 was allotted to M/s. Jyoti Estates. The said plot was then transferred to the complainant on 10.02001. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.4,78,778.00 in six instalments to the petitioner/Opposite Party upto 204.200 The case of the complainant is that he paid security, maintenance charges etc. of the said plot regularly, but the said area was not developed and the market value of the land in question went down to less than Rs.1,000.00 per sq. yard. The complainant had been visiting the office of the OP to enquire about the status of the plot, but he was told in May 2006 that the said plot had been cancelled. The complainant maintains that he was not given any notice regarding the cancellation, although he had made payment of about 58% of the basic cost of the plot. The cancellation amount of Rs.3,96,683.00 alleged to have been sent by the OP was never received by him. The complainant/respondent, therefore, filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, which ordered the restoration of plot no. C/C-287 to the complainant vide order dated 06.08.2009 and directed the OP to deliver the possession to the complainant on depositing the balance amount, without any forfeiture of amount. A sum of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000.00 as costs was also allowed to the complainant. An appeal was filed by the petitioner/OP against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission, but the same was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) This revision petition was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2013, passed by this Commission on the ground that this was a case of filing the second consumer complaint by the complainant before the District Forum and that, such second complaint was not maintainable. A Civil Appeal No. 557/2016 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 19618/2013 filed against the order dated 24.05.2013 of this Commission) was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court on 27.01.2016, according to which, the order of this Commission dated 24.05.2013 was set aside and it was directed that the second complaint filed by the complainant was maintainable. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard again and the matter is being decided after due consideration of the merits of the case and the arguments led by the respective counsels.