STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 28 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 16.01.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 14.03.2014 |
1.Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1/18B,Asaf Ali Road,New Delhi
2.Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C,Chandigarh
……Appellants/Opposite Parties.
Versus
1.Lt. Col. Inderjit Singh Cheema (Retd.) S/o Sh. Sampuran Singh,
2.Mrs. Davinder Cheema W/o Lt. Col. Inderjit Singh Cheema (Retd.), both residents of H.No.2270-B, Sector 47-C,Chandigarh.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
“19. For the reasons recorded above, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-
i) To refund an amount of Rs.2,92,131/- for increased area + Rs.9027/- as service tax on increased area + Rs.81,503/- paid as Pre-EMI to HDFC + Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- (Total Rs.4,30,338/-) along with interest @12% from the date of the respective deposits by the complainants till realization.
ii) To pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the complainants for delay in handing over of possession of the flat and changing the place of parking and resultant mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
iii) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants.
20. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.4,30,338/- @18% p.a. from the date of the respective deposits by the complainants till realization. The OPs shall also pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount of compensation of Rs.2 lacs, in case of default of payment within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.”
2.
3.
4. Chandigarh & Orchid County, Sector 115, Mohali before they could get possession of the unit. It was further stated that, being left with no other choice, the complainants deposited Rs.47,677/- with SFML, under protest, in order to take possession of the unit which was delivered only on 1.3.2013.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Para.It was further submitted that delay, if any, in delivering possession of the flat was adequately covered in payment of pre-EMIs by the appellants/Opposite Parties. It was further submitted that till July 2012, the appellants/Opposite Parties had already paid the pre-EMIs. It was also submitted that after offer of possession in July 2012, the same (offer of possession) was again reiterated in September 2013 as was evident from letter dated 15.9.2013 (Annexure C-8). It was further submitted that the respondents/complainants were at liberty to rescind the contract. While concluding the arguments, the Counsel submitted that the issue of super area was a fallacy and delay, if any, was duly safeguarded with payment of pre-EMIs and escalation in the prices of real estate. It was further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
15.
16.
17.
“9. THAT the Company shall, under normal conditions, complete the construction of “Palm Grove” as per the said plans and specifications seen and accepted by the Apartment Allottees with such additions, deletions, alterations, modifications in the layout, building plans, change in number, dimensions, height, size, area or change of entire scheme the Company may consider necessary or may be required by any competent authority to be made in them or any of them. To implement all or any of these changes, supplementary allotment letter, if necessary will be executed by the company. If as a result of the above alteration etc., there is either reduction or increase in the super area of the said premises or its location, no claim, monetary or otherwise will be raised or accepted except that the original agreed rate per sq. mt./sq.ft and other charges will be applicable for the changed area i.e. at the same rate at which the apartment was registered/booked or as the company may decide and as a consequence of such reduction or increase in the super area, the company shall be liable to refund without interest only the extra basic price and other pro rata charges recovered or shall be entitled to recover the additional basic price and other proportionate charges without interest as the case may be. If for any reason the company is not in a position to allot the property applied for, the company, at its sole discretion, shall consider for any alternative property or refund the amount deposited with simple interest @10% per annum.”
18.
19.
“10.
20.
“……The Borrower has informed HDFC of the scheme of arrangement between the Borrower and the Builder in terms whereof the Builder hereby assumes the liability of payments under the loan agreement as payable by the Borrower to HDFC during the 25 MONTHS (the period be referred to s the “Liability Period” and the Liability 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……..”
21.
22. Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank,, to contendst
23. Bangalore Development Authority`s case (supra), no time limit for delivery, was fixed in the brochure. Expected date of completion was incidentally mentioned, in the letter, intimating the revised costs, to the buyer`s. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that this did not make time as an essence of the contract. It was further held that the scheme was launched by the Bangalore Development Authority, on ‘no- profit –no-loss’ basis and no negligence, on the part of the Development Authority, was proved, whereas the physical possession of the houses was delivered at the original price. It was, under these circumstances, that the Apex Court held that the complainant was not entitled to any interest. The facts and circumstances of the said case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24.
“24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
(i)
(ii)
(iii) delay in handing over of possession of the flat and changing the place of parking,instead of Rs.2 Lacs, as awarded by the District Forum in Direction No.19(ii) of the impugned order, within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
32.
33.
Pronounced.
March 14, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.28 of 2014)
Argued by:
Dated the 14th
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been partly allowed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been modified.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER |
Ad
