TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. KULVINDER SINGH BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders dated 22.04.2016 and 12.08.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 225/2015, filed by the present respondent, vide which, the right of the appellant/opposite party (OP) to file written version to the consumer complaint was closed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Dr. Kulvinder Singh Bahl filed the consumer complaint no. 225/15 before the Delhi State Commission against the present appellant/OP builder, saying that he had booked a residential space of 1499 sq. ft with them vide application dated 10.09.2011 and a floor-buyer agreement was entered between him and the opposite party on 21.03.2012. The complainant had made a total payment of Rs. 29,39,445/- till the date of making the complaint, which constituted about 80% of the total consideration for the said property. However, even after the expiry of a period of 30 months from the date of the agreement, the OP builder had not been able to provide possession of the said residential property to him, as laid down in the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP builder to refund the sum of Rs. 29,39,445/- deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay compensation for deficiency in service, litigation cost etc.

(3.) It has been admitted by the appellant in the grounds of appeal itself that notice of the consumer complaint was sent to the appellant/OP builder and the date of hearing was fixed as 02.12.2015. The OP builder put in appearance before the State Commission on 02.12.2015, on which date, a copy of the complaint was handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant and the matter was adjourned to 22.04.2016. However, the OP builder did not put in appearance on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.04.2016, on which date, the following order was recorded by the State Commission:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_19_LAWS(NCD)4_2018_1.html</FRM>