logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.152 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : RA/85 of 2026 with IA/5474 of 2026 In Consumer Complaint No. 1694 of 2017
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (RETD) PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Parties : Gulnaaz Manawar & Others Versus M/s. Parkway Homes LLP & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ------ For the Respondents: -----
Date of Judgment : 19-05-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Review
- Condonation of delay
- Joint and several liability
- Refund
- Interest

3. Summary:
The Commission considered Review Application No. 85 of 2026 and Interim Application No. 5474 of 2026 filed by the complainants. The interim application seeking condonation of delay was allowed. On merits, the Commission identified a clerical error in paragraph 8 of its earlier order dated 06‑11‑2025, where “OP” was used instead of “OPs”. The order was corrected to reflect joint and several liability of the opposite parties to refund the consideration with interest at 9% per annum, and a higher rate for delayed payment. The corrected directions were incorporated, and the review application was disposed of accordingly.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

In Chamber

1. The Applicants/Complainants have filed Review Application No. 85 of 2026 seeking review of the Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 1694 of 2017, along with I.A. No. 5474 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing the said Review Application.

2. We have carefully perused the impugned Order dated 06.11.2025, the Review Application, and the accompanying Interim Application.

3. I.A. No. 5474 of 2026, filed for condonation of delay in filing Review Application No. 85 of 2026, is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

4. Upon consideration of Review Application No. 85 of 2026 on merits, there is an error apparent in paragraph 8 of the Order dated 06.11.2025 wherein as against the joint and several liability of OPs it has inadvertently been mentioned as "OP". Accordingly, the following correction is made:

                          For:

                          "8. After considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Complainants have option to either seek possession of the flats or a refund, with compensation. In this case, the Complainants have opted for refund, with compensation. Accordingly, the OP is directed to refund the entire consideration paid by the Complainants; and pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until the date of final payment. This payment shall be made within 60 days from today. In the event of any delay beyond 60 days, the interest shall be payable at 12% per annum for the delayed period."

                          Be read as:

                          "8. After considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Complainants have option to either seek possession of the flats or a refund, with compensation. In this case, the Complainants have opted for refund, with compensation. Accordingly, the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the entire consideration paid by the Complainants; and pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until the date of final payment. This payment shall be made within 60 days from today. In the event of any delay beyond 60 days, the interest shall be payable at 12% per annum for the delayed period."

5. With the aforesaid correction/directions, Review Application No. 85 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.
 
  CDJLawJournal