Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 01 NCDRC CK 0073

Preeti Goel vs Supersonic Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 19 January 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member · Subhash Chandra, Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition No. 533 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 351 words

Subhash Chandra, Member

1.

This revision petition has been filed under section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, the ‘Act’) against the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 256 of 2021 dated 19.04.2022 which has directed that the case be listed before it on 14.06.2022.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that she had had booked shop no. FC-2 admeasuring 130 sq ft in Sainik World Mall, Surajpur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar for Rs 9,01,559/- on 16.08.2015 and paid Rs.8,22,000/- in instalments. Neither possession of the shop which was promised within one month has been done by the respondent despite receiving over 90% of the sale consideration nor the 12% assured return promised in default was paid in full. Consumer complaint no. C-463 of 2017 was filed before the District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Gautam Buddha Nagar (“District Forum”) which was compromised between the parties on 26.03.2019 and respondent handed over post dated cheques amounting to Rs 11,83,132/- as refund and interest in lieu of which the petitioner withdrew all cases instituted by her and returned the original documents. However, only 4 cheques could be encashed and the rest were dishonoured for lack of sufficient funds or returned on account of the account being blocked. FA No. 256 of 2021 was then filed.

3.

The petition has impugned an order which is not a final order of the State Commission and seeks directions for expeditious and fair disposal.

4.

We have heard the Power of Attorney holder in person. None appeared for the respondent despite notice.

5.

As there is no final order of the State Commission which is impugned before us and the only prayer before us is that the State Commission to decide the matter early, the complaint is disposed off with the directions to the State Commission, Lucknow to dispose of FA no. 256 of 2011 expeditiously.

6.

Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27th February 2023.