LAWS(NCD)-2014-5-30

M/S. OMAXE LTD. Vs. IQBAL BEGUM

Decided On May 16, 2014
M/S. Omaxe Ltd. Appellant
V/S
IQBAL BEGUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. C-55/2012 Ms. Iqbal Begum Vs. M/s. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing complaint, OP No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.69,31,411/- with 9% p.a. interest from 5.5.2008 till date of actual payment and further awarded Rs.25,000/- as cost and dismissed complaint against OP No. 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 was allotted commercial space by OP No. 1/appellant for a sum of Rs.72,96,222.23 for carrying out business of "Footwear and Sports. OP No. 1 agreed to pay Rs.70,000/- per month as rent till the time some leading brand take allotted space on rent. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 will arrange brands like 'Nike' and 'Arrow'. Due to non-satisfactory construction made by OP No. 1, no brand name turned up to take commercial space on rent. Mall still is incomplete; so, the complainant gave legal notice dated 3.1.2012, but OPs have failed to fulfill their assurances. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP No. 1/Appellant resisted complaint, admitted allotment of space and receipt of 95% payment of the basic sale price, but submitted that remaining 5% of the basic sale price and other additional charges have so far not been paid by the complainant. It was further submitted that commercial complex was to be completed within 30 months from the date of agreement, i.e., 5.5.2008, but project has been completed by February, 2010, well before time. OP denied for arrangement of tenant. It was further submitted that as per agreement, OP paid a sum of Rs.17,81,506/- to the complainant and deposited TDS of Rs.1,92,604/-. It was further alleged that no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP and OP is ready and willing to handover physical possession of the unit subject to receipt of balance sale consideration. It was further alleged that complaint was time barred and complainant was not a consumer, as property in question was commercial in nature and learned State Commission had no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 did not file written statement. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 and directed him to pay Rs.69,31,411/- with 9% p.a. interest from 5.5.2008 till the date of actual payment and further awarded Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation against which, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.