Haryana

StateCommission

CC/202/2018

SUDHIR KUMAR SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

IREO FIVERIVER PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RANJAN LOHAN

12 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:28.03.2018

                Date of final hearing:12.05.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:12.05.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.202 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Sudhir Kumar Sain S/o Shri Mani Ram Sain, resident of House No.215, Sector 20, Sirsa, Haryana.  

                                                                                      .….Complainant

 

Through counsel Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate

 

Versus

 

 

1.      IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director.

2.      IREO Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd., Site office at Sector 3, 4 & 4-A, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, District Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.03.2020.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant booked a plot with the opposite parties (OPs) and the opposite parties allotted plot No.S68, Type B measuring 370.75 square yards situated at Sector 3, 4 & 4 A, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, District Panchkula Haryana against a total sale consideration of Rs.81,56,720/- plus EDC, IDC, PLC etc. The Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and the OPs on 20.10.2011. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.20,58,760/- to the Ops on different dates. It is also alleged that at the time of allotment, OPs assured the complainant that possession of the flat would be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement as a ‘Commitment Period’. Accordingly, the Ops were required to give the physical possession of the plot to the complainant by September, 2013 (within 24 months) or by March, 2014 (within 30 months) as per terms of the Plot Buyers Agreement. It is further submitted that the opposite parties were required to develop and complete the project within the stipulated period but there is a complete uncertainty with regard to the completion of the project for years. It is also submitted that the complainant wrote a letter dated 20.03.2015 for refund of the amount along with interest paid by him to the opposite parties. But vide letter dated 07.07.2015, the opposite parties refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant prayed that the Ops be directed to refund Rs.20,58,760/- which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposits, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for multiple injuries, harassment and damages etc. and Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops, but the opposite parties refused to receive the notice and thus ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the Ops vide order dated 04.03.2020.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sudhir Kumar Sain-complainant as Ex.CW1/A vide which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the same.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ranjan Lohan, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averments made in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the Ops, alongwith interest or not? 

6.                After careful perusal of the entire record, which is not rebutted, it stands proved that the complainant booked a residential plot with Ops. An agreement dated 20.10.2011 also came into existence between the parties. As per the said agreement, total cost of the plot was agreed to be Rs.81,56,720/-. As per the complainant, despite payment of an amount of Rs.20,58,760/- (Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2) to the Ops, the construction was not completed by the Ops. Complainant requested for refund of deposited amount (letter Ex.C-4). Since the project was not complete and possession was delayed much beyond the stipulated time, this Commission is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus, the complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of balance amount of Rs.20,58,760/- (Twenty lakhs fifty eight thousand and seven hundred sixty only) which he had already deposited with the Ops. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still remained deprived of the possession of the apartment and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the Ops are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,58,760/- (Twenty lakhs fifty eight thousand and seven hundred sixty only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                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.

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

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

 

Pronounced on:12^th May, 2023

                                                                            

                                                                                               

                                                                                      T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                      (President)        

 

 

 Manjula

(Member) 

 

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                                           

M.S.