STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     

1.SH. GURMEET SINGH DHINDSA son of Sh. Balwant Singh Dhindsa;

2.MS. JYOTI DHINDSA wife of Sh. Gurmeet Singh Dhindsa;

Both residents of House #318-A, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.

                                                      VERSUS

1.EMAAR MGF LAND Ltd., Regd. Office: SCO #120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017.

2.MR. SHRAVAN GUPTA, Executive Vice Chairman/Managing Director, Regd. Office: ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

Also at : SCO #120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017.

3.H.E. MOHD. ALI ALLABAR, Chairman, Emaar MGF Land Ltd., Representative Office: Emaar Sales Cenre, Emaar Square Downtown, Building #3, Ground Floor, Dubai – PO Box 9440 UAE.      

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Argued by:Sh. Munish Jain, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for Opposite  

Opposite Party No.3 exparte.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

2.          

3.            as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.

4.          

5.           

6.          

7.          

8.           

9.             

10.                              (at Page 37), the complainants wereAshok Khanna Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority’, Revision Petition No.2002 of 2005,

11.             

12.           

13.           

“8.     

14.            

15.           

16.   

17.             ^{decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in similar circumstances, when possession of the plot was not given by the builder to the complainant for a long period, refund of the amount deposited by him with interest and compensation were granted. The principle of law, laid down in18.}          

“3…… The Borrower has informed HDFC of the scheme of arrangement

4 to 7.8.                

9……..That in the event of occurrence of default under the Loan Agreement which could 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 made 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…….

10….. Further, the Builder, in the event of default of repayment as mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 hereinabove, shall on intimation by HDFC cancel the allotment of the residential apartment in favour of the borrower and refund all monies due to HDFC directly under intimation to the borrower for appropriation and adjustment by HDFC against all monies due to it from the Borrower as mentioned above.”

The facts of cases^{’s case (supra)’s case (supra)are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.} ,the National Commission held that at the time of delivery of possession, the respondent did not charge any additional price. Rs.57,000/-were paid by the petitioner without any protest. In the said case, the possession was taken on 15.12.1993, whereas the complaint was filed in the later months of 1995, i.e., after a lapse of about 2 years which showed that at the time of delivery of possession, the petitioner was satisfied, but later on he changed his mind and filed the complaint seeking interest on the deposited amount. It was, under these circumstances, held in the said case that time was not the essence of contract. The other case titled

19.           

20.           

21.   

                            The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally, directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,10,000/-, to the complainants, alongwith interest @9% per annum 

                           The Opposite parties are further, jointly and severally, directed to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                          Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainants, by the Opposite Parties, to the extent, the amount is due to it, against the complainants as it (HDFC) advanced loan in their (complainants) favour for part payment of the price of flat, in question, under the Tripartite Agreement dated 03.11.2009.

                          The Opposite Parties are further jointly and severally, directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainants.

                           In case the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite parties shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @12% per annum, instead of 9% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @12% per annum, on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

22.        

23. 

Pronounced.

9^th

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Ad

Argued by:Sh. Munish Jain, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for Opposite  

Opposite Party No.3 exparte.

Dated the 

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this complaint, filed by the complainants, has been partly accepted with costs.