BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

IN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1314 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal

....Complainant(s)

Vs.

BPTP Limited & Ors..

…Opposite Parties

INDEX

SL PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

NO

1. Written Version on behalf of the Performa

Opposite Party No.2 alongwith affidavit.

2. Annexure A
copy of the Tripartite agreement dated
30.12.2013

3. Annexure B
dCopy of the Loan Agreement dated
 a31.12.2013

4. Annexure C
Copy of Promissory Note dated
31.12.2013

5. Application for exemption from filing true

typed Copy of the annexure alongwith
affidavit

6. An Applcation for Condonation of Delay

7. Proof of service

8. Vakalatnama

Filed by

Through

Place: New Delhi S. Jalan & Co.

Vaibhav kharbanda

Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Email- del@sjalanco.com
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW –DELHI.

COMPLAINT NO: 1314 OF 2018.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sangeeta Aggarwal

…Complainant

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors.

…Opposite Parties

Written version on behalf of the opposite party no2

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That on the basis of a purported complaint by one Sangeeta

Aggarwal the aforesaid matter is pending adjudication before this

Hon’ble Commission.

2. That the said complaint is vexatious, misconceived, and not

maintainable either on facts or law against the opposite party

no.2, even if the purported averments in the complaint are all

taken to be true and correct, it does not give rise to any cause of

action to the complainant against the opposite party no.2 under

 any law, including the consumer protection Act, 1986 or

otherwise. To implead of the Opposite party no.2 in the present

proceedings despite it being neither a necessary party nor a

proper party, has severely prejudiced the opposite party no.2 and

the same amounts liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. That the said complaint does not disclose any cause of action as

against the opposite party. No.2.

4. Before dealing with the various allegations and /or contentions in

the aforesaid complaint and its various paragraphs, most of which

are leveled against the opposite party no.1 herein and as such do

not concern the Opposite Party no.2, the facts of the instant case

for appreciation by this Hon’ble Commission are stated as under:

5. That the opposite party no 1 herein, namely BPTP Ltd. is a,

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered

office at M-11, Middle Circus, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-

110001 and is involved in the business of development of real

estate and housing.

6. In course of its business the opposite party no.1 had developed

the project named “Pedestral” situated at 70A, Gurgaon, Haryana

(hereinafter referred to as the “said project”) and had allotted/

agreed to sell residential flats in such housing projects to home

buyers
7. On ………… the complainant had approached the opposite party

no. 2, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited , as they

were short of finance, in order to avail a home loan facility to finance

a residential unit, namely unit no.D-61-FF (hereinafter referred to as

the “said property”) in the said project. Pursuant to discussions in

that regard, when it was represented by the Borrowers that they had

selected a builder of their choice and that and that the property were

of their choice and they have satisfied themselves with regard to such

builder’s integrity, capability, quality of construction and the like.

8. The complainant, opposite party no. 1 and the Opposite Party

no. 2 on 30.12.2013 executed and entered into a tripartite

agreement, the terms and conditions whereof are more fully

described therein. A copy of such agreement dated 30.12.2013 is

annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A.

9. On 31.12.2013 pursuant to the terms and conditions as

enumerated in the tripartite agreement as aforesaid, the opposite

party no .2 agreed to sanction, and had sanctioned such home loan

facility for a sum of Rs. 70,97, 080 to the complainant, pursuant to

which a loan account was created bearing number 609487481,

containing such terms and conditions as more fully described therein,

A copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked with the Annexure-B.

10. On the same date, that is on 31.12.2013 the complainant

signed and executed a promissory note for a sum of Rupees Seventy

two lakh, eighty seven thousand and eighteen only, along with

interest thereon payable on demand in favour of the opposite party

no.2. A copy of such promissory note is annexed hereto and marked

as Annexure-C

11. The tripartite agreement referred to in the preceding

paragraph inter-alia records the following terms:

Recital: “The Borrower has represented that the builder is of his

choice and that he has satisfied himself with regard to integrity,

capability and quality of construction of the builder and the builder’s

ability for timely completion and on time delivery of the project”

Recital: “HDFC has considered the said request with a clear

understanding and an irrevocable undertaking by the borrower that

subsequent to the disbursements as requested by the borrower,

there would be no repayment default for any reason whatsoever

including but not limited to any concern/issues between the borrower

and the builder”

Recital: “The borrower has represented, and such representation

being a continuing representation, that Borrower’s obligation to

repay the loan shall be a distinct and independent obligation more

particularly independent of any issues/concern/dispute of

whatsoever nature between the Borrower and Builder”

Further, some of the mutual covenants between the parties as

recorded in the agreement is as follows:

Clause 2: “The housing loan as advanced to the borrower by HDFC

shall be subject to the borrower’s repayment capacity as assesses by

HDFC and shall be secured against the first and exclusive mortgage of

the residential /floor to be acquired by the Project in favour of HDFC”

Clause 3: “The housing loan advanced to the borrower by HDFC shall

be repayable by the borrower by way of Equated Monthly Instalments

(EMI). The date of commencement of EMI shall be first day of the

month following the month in which the disbursement f the loan will

have been completed and consequently the first date for payment of

EMI in such case shall be the last day of the following month. Till the

commencement of EMI, the borrower shall pay Pre-EMI, which is the

simple interest on the loan amount disbursed calculated at the rate of

interest as mentioned in the respective loan of the Borrower

The borrower has informed HDFC of the scheme of arrangement

between the Borrower and Builder in terms whereof the Builder

hereby assumes the liability of payments under the loan agreement

as payable by the Borrower to HDFC from date of first and each

subsequent disbursement till 30.11.2015(the period be referred to as

the “Liability Period” and the liability to be referred to as “Assumed

Liability”. It is however agreed that during the liability period the

repayment liability is joint and several by and between the Borrower

and the Builder. The assumption of liability by the Builder in no

manner whatsoever releases, relinquishes and/or reduces the liability

of the Borrower and that the same shall not be affected in any

manner on account of any difference and/or dispute between the

Borrower and the Builder under the arrangement between them.”

Clause 4: “That irrespective of the stage of construction of the project

and irrespective of the date of handing over of the possession of the

residential apartment/floor to the Borrower by the Builder, the

borrower shall be liable to pay HDFC regularly each month, the Pre-

EMI and EMI as laid down in the loan agreement signed by and

between HDFC and the Borrower. The Borrower shall execute an

indemnity and such other documents as may be required by HDFC in

favour of HDFC in that regard.”

Clause 7: “That the builder shall not hand over the actual and physical

possession of the said floor/residential apartment to the borrower

before execution and registration of the said deed and the original

registered sale deed shall be submitted to HDFC directly by the

builder to be kept by HDFC towards security for the said loan.

Clause 8: “That if the Borrower fails to pay the balance amount

representing the difference between the loan sanctioned by HDFC

and the actual purchase price of the residential apartment/floor or in

case of death of the Borrower, or in the event of cancellation of the

residential apartment/floor for any reason whatsoever the entire

amount advanced by HDFC shall be refunded by the builder to HDFC

forthwith. The borrower hereby subrogates all his rights for refund

with respect to the said residential apartment in favour of HDFC”

Clause 9: “Further if the Borrower commits a breach of any of the

terms of and conditions of this Tripartite Agreement it shall be

treated as an event of default under the agreement for sale/allotment

cum agreement for sale or any such agreement or document signed

by an between the borrower and builder for the sale of the said

residential apartment

That in the event of occurrence of default under the loan agreement

which would result in the cancellation of the allotment as a

consequence thereof and/or for any reason whatsoever if the

allotment is cancelled, any amount payable to the Borrower on

account of such cancellation shall be directly paid to HDFC However it

is further agreed between the parties that such payment Mcde by the

Builder directly to HDFC shall not absolve the borrower from his

liability to pay the residual amount, if any, from the outstanding,

under the loan agreement.

That the Borrower agrees that it unconditionally and irrevocable

subrogates its rights to receive any amount payable by the builder to

the borrower in the event of cancellation in favour of HDFC and that

the act of payment by the builder to HDFC under this clause shall

amount to a valid discharge of the Builder of its obligation t0 pay the

Borrower such cancellation amount.”

12. That the relationship between the opposite party no.2 and the

complainant is purely financial and arise out of the terms of the loan

agreement , being Annexure B and the Tripartite Agreement being

Annexure A and the demand promissory note being Annexure C to

this written version.

13. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant

and the opposite party no.2 with regard to any other agreement that

might have existed or exists between the remaining opposite parties

and the complainant herein, consequently the terms of any such

purported agreement cannot be binding upon the opposite party

no.2.

14. The genesis of the present complaint relates to disputes inter-

se the complainant and the opposite party and for any alleged

misconduct, breach of obligation, not being one committed by the

opposite party no.2, this complaint as against the opposite party no.2

is liable to be dismissed, and/or in the alternative its name should be

removed from the array of parties of the present complaint.

15. That the present Complaint is a product of issues inter-se

between the remaining opposite parties and the complainant, who is

trying to redress its grievances against the remaining opposite parties,

of which the opposite party no.2is not concerned with. The opposite

party no.2 cannot be fastened with any liability for the conduct of the

opposite partyno.1 arising out of the document executed between

the Complainant and the opposite party no.1, to which the opposite

party no.2 is not an executing party.

16. That the question of any “deficiency of service” on part of the

opposite party no. 2 therefore does not and cannot arise. It is

absolutely clear and a matter of record that the complainant

identified the developer and the property on their own accord and

entered into an agreement with the opposite party no. 1 for

purchasing the said property apartment in the said Project. It is

pertinent to note that the disbursement of the loan took place post

specific written instructions from the complainant, which was again in

terms of the tripartite agreement being Annexure A. It is further

stated that the opposite party no.2 has acted only as a financier to

complainant so as to facilitate them to purchase their desired

property. Hence, any question of alleged “deficiency of service”

flowing from the conduct of the opposite party no. 2 does not and

cannot arise.
 17. That the act of impleading opposite party no.2in the purported

complaint by the complainant is an action motivated by mala-fide and

has advised in order to wriggle the complainant out of its liability

under the loan documents being Annexure A, Annexure B and

Annexure C respectively and to avoid payment of EMI. Moreover, the

opposite partyno.2 has absolutely no control nor any say as to the

time of possession of the demised premises or any allotment in the

project. The present compliant is liable to be rejected for it discloses

no cause of cause of action against the opposite party no.2.

18. Without prejudice to what has been stated above and on the

contrary strongly relying thereon, the various paragraphs of the

complaint are dealt with in the manner following:

19. Save what are matters of record and what would appear

therefrom, and save what has been stated hereinabove and save

what is specifically admitted hereinafter, each and every allegation

and/or contention contained in the various paragraphs of the said

complaint are denied and disputed as if the same were set out

hereunder and denied and disputed seriatim.

20. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 4 of the said complaint, save

what are matters of record, each and every allegation and contention

contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and disputed.

21. With reference to paragraph 5 of the said complaint, the

allegations made therein are not directed towards and accordingly do

not concern the respondent no.2 and are accordingly do not require a

reply.

22. With reference to paragraph 6 of the said complaint, it is

denied that any complaint under section 21 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable as against the opposite party

no.2 by the complainant or that the complaint has been correctly

valued to vest this Hon’ble Commission with jurisdiction to entertain,

try and determine this purported complaint.

23. With reference to paragraph 7 of the said complaint, save what

are matters of record, each and every allegation and contention

contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and disputed.

24. With reference to paragraph 8,9,10 of the said complaint, the

statements made therein relates to transactions in which the

opposite party no.2 is not a party and as such they pertain to facts not

within its knowledge and do no concern the opposite party no.2.

Accordingly they are not commented upon.

25. With reference to paragraph 11 of the said complaint, save

what are matters of record, each and every allegation and contention

contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and disputed.The

opposite party no.2 cannot be bound by any purported assurance,

which is given by any other opposite party and not by it.

26. With reference to paragraph 12 and 13 of the said complaint,

save what are matters of record, each and every allegation and/or

contention contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and

disputed.

27. With reference to paragraph 14 of the said complaint, the same

contain statements which concern a contract between the opposite

party no.1 and the complainant to which the opposite party no.2 is

not an executing party, and there is no privity of contract between

the opposite party no.2 and the complainant with regard to such

agreement referred to as the draft floor buyer’s agreement. The

allegations contained in such paragraph therefore do not concern the

opposite party no.2 and are accordingly not commented upon.

28. With reference to paragraph 15 of the said complaint, it is

denied that the tripartite agreement as referred to was only signed by

the complainant and the opposite party no.1 as alleged. The tri-

partite agreement being Annexure A was signed by and between the

complainant and the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. It is further denied

and disputed that as per the tripartite agreement it was agreed

between the parties that the opposite party no.1 will assume the

liability of payments under the loan agreements as payable by the

borrower to the opposite party no.2 from the date of first

disbursement till the date of possession as alleged. Such a statement

is contrary to the terms of the tripartite agreement. It is stated that as

per the tripartite agreement the opposite party no.1 was to assume

liability of payments under the loan agreements as payable by the

borrower to the opposite party no.2 from the date of first

disbursement till 30.11.2015. Clause 3 of the tripartite agreement

may be referred to in this context as already referred to in paragraph

11 herein. It is denied and disputed that the terms of the tripartite

agreement are one-sided, unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable and

against public policy, including clause 7 htereof as alleged or at all.

The scope of the said agreement were read over, understood by and

signed by the complainant with her eyes wide open. To brand it as

unfair now is an afterthought and motivated with mala fide, in an

attempt to defeat the rights of the opposite party on.2 under the

terms of such agreement. It is denied that the complainant had no

option but to sign the tripartite agreement as alleged or at all.

29. With reference to paragraph 16 of the said complaint, save

what are matters of record, each and every allegation and contention

contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and disputed.

30. With reference to paragraphs 17 and 18of the said complaint,

the facts mentioned therein is not within the knowledge of the

opposite party no.2 herein and accordingly do not require a reply.

31. With reference to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said complaint,

it is stated that the opposite party no.2 is not a party to the floor

buyer’ s agreement and as such the statements contained in these

paragraphs do not require a reply by the opposite party no.2, since

they pertain to such agreement.

32. With reference to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said complaint,

they do not contain any allegation as against the opposite party no.2

and accordingly do not require a reply by the opposite party no.2.

33. With reference to paragraph 23 of the said complaint, any

alleged agreement if at all existed between the opposite party no.1

and the complainant that the interest under the subvention scheme

will be borne by the opposite party no.1 till offer of possession, such

an agreement was not arrived at with the consent of the opposite

party no.2 and such an alleged agreement is in any event the terms of

the tripartite agreement, and is not binding on the opposite party

no.2.

34. With reference to paragraph 24 of the said complaint, save

what are matters of record, each and every allegation and contention

contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith is denied and disputed.

35. With reference to paragraphs 25-39 of the said complaint, the

same contain allegations and or contentions which are not directed

towards the opposite party no.2 and contain facts not within the
knowledge of the opposite eparty no.2 and are accordingly not

commented upon.

36. With reference to paragraph 40, it is denied and disputed that

by reason of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development Act)2016 or

any of its provisions would give any right to the complainant of refund

of any money form the opposite party no.1. All rights of the

complainant in such regard have been subrogated in favour of the

opposite party no.2 and are governed by the tripartite agreement

being Annexure A herein.

41. With reference to paragraph 41-42, the same refers to an

agreement with which the opposite party no.2 has no privity of

contract with the complainant, as such its terms do not bind the

opposite party no.2 and as such the paragraph does not require a

reply by the opposite party no.2

42. With reference to paragraphs 43-44, the statements contained

therein asks for no relief as against the opposite party no.2 and as

such requires no reply by the opposite party no.2

43. With reference to paragraph 45, it is denied and disputed that

he complaint has been correctly valued as alleged or at all.

44. With reference to paragraph 46, it is denied and disputed that

form the facts as alleged in the purported complaint or even

otherwise, any cause of action can be said to have arisen in favour of

the complainant against the opposite party no.2or that any such

alleged cuse of action continues form day to day as alleged or at all.

45. With reference to paragraph 47-48, the same are matters of

record and save and except what appears therefrom, all allegations to

the contrary are denied and disputed.

46. With reference to paragraph 49, it is denied that the complaint

is bona fide or is to further the ends of justice as alleged or at all.

47. With reference to paragraph 50, save and except what appears

form record, all statements to the contrary are denied and disputed.

. With reference to the prayers as set out in the instant

complaint, it is denied that they can be granted to the opposite party

no.2. The tripartite agreement as aforementioned clearly states in

clause 8 and 9 thereof that the borrower (complainant herein) has by

executing the said tripartite agreement agreed to subrogate his rights

for re-payment of any money due from the Builder (opposite party

no.1 herein) to HDFC (the opposite party no.2 herein). Also if the

allotment is cancelled for any reason whatsoever, all monies due from

the builder (opposite party no.1 herein) to the Borrower(complainant

herein) shall be paid directly by the builder to HDFC (the opposite

party no.2 herein).

 PRAYER

Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to;

i. Dismiss the present complaint as against the opposite

party no.2

ii. Pass such other and further Order or Orders as this

Hon’ble Commissionmay deem fit and proper in the

interest of justice.

Opposite Party No.2

Through

Advocate
For M/s________________________
________New Delhi-110019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW –DELHI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1314 OF 2018.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal ...Complainant(s)

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT

I, Diganta Baurah, S/o Late Shri Atul Chandra Baruah, aged

about 57 years, the authorized Representative and the duly

constituted attorney of the Responded no 2, posted at the

Capital Court, Munirka, O1of Palme Marg, Outer Ring

Road, Delhi do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of Opposite

party no 2 in the above noted case and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case and as such am competent to swear and affirm the

present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the accompanying written

version , contents of which are true to my knowledge

and legal submissions are based upon information and

advise received and believed to be true.

 DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at ……………. On ………………. that contents of my

aforesaid affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has

been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Filed By Through

S. Jalan & Co.

Aradhita Ghosh Mondal

Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Email- del@sjalanco.com

Place: New Delhi

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
I.A. No. of 2018
IN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1314 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal ...Complainant(s)

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRUE TYPED

COPY OF THE ANNEXURES.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

“Opposite Party No. 2”( hereinafter referred to as

“Applicant”). Wherein, the Applicant has been impleaded as

Opposite Party No. 2 and the aforesaid matter is pending for

adjudication before the Hon’ble Commission. The contents of

the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That due to paucity of time and urgency in the matter, the

applicant is unable to file the true typed copy of complete

Annexures before this Hon’ble Commission. Therefore, the

 Complainant is seeking exemption from filing the same in

the interest of justice.

PRAYER

In view of the above facts and circumstances it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Exempt the applicant/Complainant from filing the True

Typed Copy of complete Annexures in the interest of

justice; and/or

(b) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Commission may

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Opposite Party No. 2

Through

S. Jalan & Co.

Vaibhav Kharbanda

Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Email- del@sjalanco.com

Place: New Delhi

Dated:
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW –DELHI.

I.A NO. OF 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1314 OF 2018.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal ...Complainant(s)

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT

I, Diganta Baurah, S/o Late Shri Atul Chandra Baruah, aged

about 57 years, the authorized Representative and the duly

constituted attorney of the Responded no 2, posted at the

Capital Court, Munirka, O1 of Palme Marg, Outer Ring

Road, Delhi do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of Opposite

party no 2 in the above noted case and a m well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case and as such am competent to swear and affirm the

present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the accompanying application

, contents of which are true to my knowledge and legal

submissions are based upon information and advise

received and believed to be true.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at ……………. On ………………. that contents of my

aforesaid affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has

been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Filed By Through

S. Jalan & Co.

Aradhita Ghosh Mondal

Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Email- del@sjalanco.com

Place: New Delhi

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

I.A. No. of 2018

IN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1314 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal ....Complainant

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors. …Opposite Parties

AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION

ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

CODE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF DAYS

IN FILING OF THE WRITTEN VERSION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying application is being filed by

“Opposite Party No.2 ”( hereinafter referred to as

“Applicant”). Wherein, the Applicant has been impleaded

as Opposite Party No. 2 and the aforesaid matter is

pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Commission.

 The contents of the same are not repeated herein for the

sake of brevity.

2. That the Written version ought to have been filed on

…………. But the same could not be filed within the

said period, as the earlier advocate lost the papers that

has been given to him to take necessary steps in the

matter, however sometimes in October the petitioner was

informed the same, immediately the petitioner arranged

the paper and handed over the same to the new advocate

appointed by the petitioner. Conferences was held but

due to the puja and Dewali vacation the present

advocate of the petitioner/respondent no 2 could not

finalized the drafting and Hence a delay of days is

caused in filing the accompanying Written version. The

said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to

unavoidable circumstances.

3. That the instant written version does not suffer from any

latches as the delay in filing this written statement is

unintentional and as such, the delay which has so

occasioned may be condoned.

4. It is submitted that the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been

enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the

parties but to ensure that they approach the

Commission for vindication of their rights without

unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of

 limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only

till the expiry of the period fixed by the

legislature. At the same time, the Commissions are

empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient

cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the

remedy within the prescribed period of limitation.

PRAYER

In these circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to:

a) Condone the delay of days in filing the accompanying

Written version.

b) Pass any such further order or orders as this Hon’ble

Commission may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the present case.

S. Jalan & Co.

Place: New Delhi Aradhita Ghosh

Mondal
Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Dated: Email-

del@sjalanco.com
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION AT NEW –DELHI.

I.A NO. OF 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1314 OF 2018.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal ...Complainant(s)

VERSUS

BPTP Limited & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT

I, Diganta Baurah, S/o Late Shri Atul Chandra Baruah, aged

about 57 years, the authorized Representative and the duly

constituted attorney of the OppositeParty no 2, posted at the

Capital Court, Munirka, O1of Palme Marg, Outer Ring

Road, Delhi do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of Opposite

party no 2 in the above noted case and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

case and as such am competent to swear and affirm the

present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the accompanying delay

application , contents of which are true to my knowledge

and legal submissions are based upon information and

advise received and believed to be true.

DEPONENT

Verification:

Verified at ……………. On ………………. that contents of my

aforesaid affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has

been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Filed By Through

S. Jalan & Co.

Aradhita Ghosh Mondal

Advocate for the Respondent no 2

E-301, Lower Ground Floor,

East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065,

Mobile 7278406661,

Email- del@sjalanco.com

Place: New Delhi