Haryana

StateCommission

A/471/2017

DEEPIKA AYADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RA0 AJENDER SINGH

01 May 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:13.04.2017

                Date of final hearing: 01.05.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 03.05.2023

 

 

First Appeal No.471 of 2017

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Deepika Yadav aged about 32 years W/o Shri Raman Yadav, E-17, GJUS&T Campus, Guru Jambeshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar presently residing at House No.618, Type-VI, Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant, Khedar, Hisar.

.….Appellant.

 

Through counsel Shri Rao Ajinder Singh, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ferrous City, Sector-19, Dharuhera, District Rewri, presently at 1^st Floor, Block-B, Vatika Towers, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Shri Tej Bahadur, Advocate

2.      M/s LIC Housing Finance, Hisar, near Jindal Chowk, DSS-71, Commercial Complex, Urban Estate-II, Hisar.

….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Shri O.P. Narang, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Rao Ajinder Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Tej Bahadur, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Shri O.P. Narang, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 09.03.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.372 of 2013, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant-Deepika Yadav dismissed.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant booked a flat bearing No.K221SF with opposite party No.1 (‘OP No.1’) by paying an amount of Rs.6,46,189/- and she also obtained loan facility from LIC Housing Finance Company, Hisar (OP No.2) for said flat. OP No.1  raised a demand of Rs.5,47,206/-, against which a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was received from OP No.2. It was alleged that complainant requested OP No.2 to release the balance payment to OP No.1 several times, upon which agent of OP No.2 intimated the complainant that the project is not completed upto the level for which demand was raised by OP no.1 and he also sent the evaluation report to the complainant and OP No.2 did not release the balance payment to OP No.1. It was further alleged that complainant also requested OP No.1 not to charge the interest on delayed payment, but OP No.1 did not pay any heed. It was further alleged that there no fault on the part of complainant for delayed payment made to OP No.1 as the loan account was opened by complainant with OP No.2 and OP No.2 was under obligation to make the payment to OP No.1 as per demand raised by builder from time to time. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written statements. OP No.1 in its written statement submitted that total cost of flat in question was Rs.25,61,600/- out of which discount of Rs.80,000/- was given to the complainant, so the total cost comes to Rs.24,81,600/-. At the time of booking an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant herself was defaulter in making payments and due to delayed payments, interest was charged as per terms and conditions of buyer’s agreement. It was further submitted that the project in question was being constructed as per the schedule and no valuation report was ever sent to OP No.1. It was further alleged that OP No.1 was in no manner concerned with delay in payment between the complainant and OP No.2 and it is not under any contractual obligation with OP No.2. Further, it was submitted that the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.52,338/- as outstanding payment. Other allegations made in the complaint were denied and it was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that as per terms and conditions of loan agreement, OP No.2 has to release the  amount after getting the progress report of the work at the spot. It was further submitted that OP No.2 had already released 82.98%  against the work as per valuation report. It was further submitted that the complainant has not suffered any harassment and financial loss. Other allegations made in the complaint were denied and it was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of complainant as mentioned above in 1^st para supra.

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainant-appellant has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rao Ajinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tej Bahadur, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. O.P. Narang, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal has also been properly perused and examined.

8.                It is admitted fact by the parties that appellant-complainant booked a flat bearing No.K221SF with respondent No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that total cost of the flat was Rs.24,81,600/- after getting some discount. It is also not disputed that she obtained loan facility from respondent No.2 (LIC Housing Finance Company, Hisar) for purchase of the said flat. It is also not in dispute that interest was charged from the complainant by respondent No.1 for delayed payments as demanded by respondent No.1.

9.               After going through the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that main dispute between the parties is regarding refund/adjustment of the interest on delayed payments. Since, it was admitted fact by the appellant that interest was charged by respondent No.1 on account of delayed payment, so it is proved that appellant was deficient in making the payments to respondent No.1 and as per the terms and conditions incorporated in buyer’s agreement, respondent No.1 is entitled to get the interest on delayed payments. On the other hand, respondent No.2 released the amount as per evaluation of work at project. In support of his version, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also brought out attention towards para No.1 of the Tripartite Agreement, which is reproduced as under:-

“…But it is expressly agreed that irrespective of there being any delay in the disbursal of any of the installment by LICHFL to the Builder, it will be treated as default on the part of Borrower who shall be liable to pay the agreed penalty/overdue interest to the Builder on such delayed payment or suffer the other consequences of default and in that case LIC HFL shall have no liability, whatsoever.”

The said tripartite agreement was signed by all the three parties. So, no deficiency in service is proved on the part of respondent No.1 & 2.

10.              In view of the above observations and discussion, learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

11.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

  12.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed of in   terms of the aforesaid order.

  13.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 03^rd May, 2023                                                                                                

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 R.K