AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Review Application nos. 362 to 369 of 2022
By these review applications, the complainants/ review petitioners are seeking review of order dated 06.12.2022. Complainants pray that there is an error in paragraph 12 of the impugned order wherein the ‘complainant’ has been mentioned as ‘opposite party’ which is an error on the face of the record. In paragraph 15 of the impugned order which has recorded the date as 21.01.2021 instead of 29.01.2021 which needs correction. It is stated that in paragraph 23 of the impugned order the date of offer of possession has been recorded as 01.03.2017 instead of 17.03.2017 and also, in paragraph 25 (i) it has been stated that the word ‘offer of’ finds mention between the words ‘actual’ and ‘possession’. These are the typographical errors on the face of the record, which needs to be corrected.
In view of the above, the review applications filed by the complainants/ review petitioners are partly allowed and the following corrections are ordered in the order dated 06.12.2022:
(a) In paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the word ‘complainant’ has been mentioned instead of ‘opposite party’, this should be substituted and read as under:
“…………………. The opposite party has admitted the delay and his liability by making an offer of 4 additional parking slots. He cannot resile from it now”.
(b) In paragraph 15 of the said impugned order, it has been mentioned as 21.01.2021. It should read as:
“…………….. The opposite party on the other hand has contended that the period of delay in paying the charges by the complainant after the filing of the complaint needs exclusion as the complainant had agreed per a consent order dated 29.01.2021 to pay charges as per invoice dated 14.04.2017……………”.
(c) In paragraph 23 of the impugned order, the date of offer of possession is recorded as 01.03.2017 instead of 17.03.2017, this need to be corrected and should read as under:
“The complainant’s case is that the offer of possession dated 17.03.2017 was not a valid offer since there were several incomplete elements in the said flat, even though the opposite party had obtained an occupancy certificate (OC) in respect of the same………………..”
(d) In paragraph 25 (i) of the said final order, the words “offer of” have found mention between words ‘actual’ and ‘possession’, whereas it should be as under:
“The opposite party to compensate the complainant for the delay in offering possession from the promised date, i.e., April, 2016 till the date of actual date of possession 23.06.2021 @ 12% per annum simple interest from the date of respective deposits”.
With these corrections, the review application is partly allowed.