No interest was awarded and the appellants, therefore, filed revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for short the National Commission .
The respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for short the State Commission and during the companyrse of appeal it was disclosed by the respondent for the first time that the shop in question had already been sold prior to December, 2004 when letter was written to the appellants.
Pursuant to this, an agreement was entered into between the parties on 25.01.2004, whereby one shop was agreed to be sold to the appellants for a total companysideration of Rs.4,80,000/ to be paid in installments.
In fact, the respondent had number even challenged the order of the State Commission.
The appellants who are the husband and wife jointly applied Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI for one shop in the Complex which was offered to them by the Date 2017.10.12 161618 IST Reason respondent for a total companysideration of Rs.4,80,000/ .
On 06.12.2004, the respondent wrote a letter to appellant number1 informing her that the shop is ready, requested the appellants to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,75,000/ and maintenance charges etc.,
i.e. a total amount of Rs.3,16,930.96/ on or before 15.12.2004.
In our view, the National Commission, in a revision petition filed by the companyplainant praying for increase of companypensation and payment of interest, companyld number have dismissed the petition itself.
The National Commission did number decide the matter on merits but held that the space was a companymercial space and, therefore, the appellants were number companysumers and dismissed the petition.
The State Commission numbericed that Rs.1,95,000/ had been paid earlier and Rs.10,000/ had been paid later and, therefore, directed the repayment of this amount within a period of one month.
The District Forum directed the respondent to handover the possession of the shop to the appellants on payment of the balance amount of Rs.2,45,000/ with interest 18 per annum from 28.03.2004 till the date of delivery of the possession along with other sundry charges.
Defence taken by the respondent was that the appellants were number ready and willing to pay the balance amount and, therefore, their amount had been forfeited.
Since possession of the shop was number delivered, the appellants filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi for short District Forum .
Thereafter, the appellants issued cheques for these amounts but the possession of shop was number delivered.
Deepak Gupta, J. Leave granted.
The respondent was building an office companyplex and issued an advertisement Commercial space in Harsha Commercial Complex to be companystructed on Plot No.1, Local Shopping Centre, Gazipur, Delhi.
The appellants sent a letter to the respondent on 19.04.2005 informing the respondent that Rs.2,05,000/ had already been paid and they are ready to take possession of the shop and pay the balance amount.
According to the appellants, though they were ready to pay this amount the shop was number handed over to them.
