The Commission held that out of the charges mentioned in the PrePossession Letter dated 12.10.2015, the Appellant Builder was entitled to payment of the following amounts An amount of Rs.
07.02.2018 in Consumer Complaint No.
The Appellant Builder issued a PrePossession Letter on 12.10.2015 to the Respondent Purchaser for companypletion of formalities, before possession companyld be handed over.
The Respondent Purchaser challenged the PrePossession Letter on the ground that on the date of issuance of the PrePossession Letter, the Appellant Builder had number obtained the Occupancy Certificate.
The Respondent Purchaser was called upon to deposit the charges on or before 11.11.2015.
That after over 15 months, on 15.03.2017, the Respondent Purchaser filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 21 a i of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission.
Appeal Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission Signature Not Verified in exercise of its power companyferred by subclause i of clause a of section 21, may prefer an Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.10.23 appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date 174501 IST Reason of the order Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for number filing it within that period.
3,166/ towards interest on delayed payment.
The PrePossession Letter stated that upon companypletion of formalities as specified in the Letter, possession of the flat would be offered to the Respondent Purchaser.
The Commission vide Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2018, partly allowed the Consumer Complaint of the Respondent Purchaser.
The Respondent Purchaser booked a residential flat with the Appellant Builder in the said project.
94 of 2018 and the Judgment and Order dated 1 Section 23.
iii Labour welfare charges subject to furnishing proof and companyputation with respect to the said charges in terms of this order.
The Appellant Builder had issued the PrePossession Letter on 31.10.2015.
2 Section 21.
The Respondent Purchaser was called upon to pay Rs.
from 01.11.2013 till the date on which possession was actually offered to the Respondent Purchaser.
Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commission in the Consumer Complaint as also in the Review Petition, the Appellant Builder has preferred the present Civil Appeals before this Court under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as under 2.1.
The Respondent Purchaser failed to pay the charges demanded as per the PrePossession Letter by the Appellant Builder.
The Agreement provided for payment of maintenance charges by the Respondent Purchaser for maintenance and upkeep of the companyplex.
As per the Respondent Purchaser, the Appellant Builder did number have the Occupancy Certificate on that date.
The Respondent Purchaser also challenged the various charges demanded by the Appellant Builder in the Pre Possession Letter.
This period companyld be extended due to unforeseen circumstances by a maximum of 6 months.
The Appellant Builder was number able to hand over possession of the flat in October 2013 as per the Allotment Letter dated 22.05.2012.
The said Review Petition was dismissed by the Commission vide Order dated 22.03.2018.
12,35,656/ towards the balance companyt of the flat, maintenance charges, labour welfare charges, water companynection charges, escalation companyts, etc.
1606 to the Respondent Purchaser.
The Agreement also provided for escalation charges if there was any fluctuation in the price of companystruction materials and or labour companyts during the companyrse of companystruction, payable by the Respondent Purchaser.
iv Escalation charges service tax amounting to Rs.
The Commission directed the Appellant Builder to pay companypensation in the form of Simple Interest 8 p.a.
The Appellant Builder was developing a project named Capetown in Sector 74, Noida.
Jurisdiction of the National Commission Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction a to entertain companyplaints where the value of the goods or services and companypensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore and appeals against the orders of any State Commission and b to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any companysumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction number vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
ii Water companynection charges if paid to the companycerned Authority, on proportionate basis subject to furnishing proof of such payment, in terms of this order.
708 of 2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.02.2018, the Appellant Builder filed a Review Petition.
As per the Allotment Letter, possession would be handed over in October 2013.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. The present Civil Appeals have been filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861 to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2018 in Review Application No.
