This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), by a real estate developer, namely, T.G. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the interim order dated 12.5.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the State Commission), in Complaint No.C-622/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant the assured return, as stipulated in Para-2(d) of the Memorandum of Understanding (for short the MOU) dated 4.10.2008, entered into between the parties in this Appeal.
The short grievance of the Appellant is that the State Commission has erred in granting the said relief to the Complainant at an interim stage, as the terms of the MOU as also of the Apartment Buyer Agreement are yet to be adjudicated upon after the parties have led their evidence in support of their respective stands. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that in terms of Clause 2(a) of MOU, the life of the MOU was only for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of the Complainant making 100% payment of the sale price of the unit allotted to him, i.e. in the year 2011 or with effect from 15 days of the date of handing over the possession or 1.10.2010, whichever is earlier, irrespective of whether the said unit was let-out or not/constructed or not constructed. It is submitted that in light of the said clause, the assured return was paid to the Complainant till December 2013.
We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel.
Apart from the fact that the order impugned is in the nature of an interim arrangement, which, of course, would be subject to the final decision in the Complaint, in which the claim by the Complainant is much more than the said amount, even otherwise the stand of the Appellant in its Written Version is that the assured return was stopped because of the recession in the Real Estate market and not that the Clause 2(a) of the MOU has outlived its life and the assured return after December 2013 is not payable. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting our interference. We may hasten to add that our observation is only for the purpose of decision in the Appeal and shall not be construed as expression of final opinion on the terms of the MOU and the afore-noted Apartment Buyer Agreement.
Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ......................
M. SHREESHA MEMBER