Haryana

StateCommission

CC/463/2018

SURENDER KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAPSKO CITY HOMES AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN K. KATARIA

05 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                Complaint  No.463 of  2018

Date of the Institution:13.08.2018

Date of Decision: 05.07.2019

 

1.      Surender Kumar Verma s/o Sh. Surajbhan Verma,

2.      Pramila Devi Verma w/o Sh. Surender Kumar Verma,

Both R/o H.No. F-78,  Sudarshan Park, New Delhi, at present residing at H.No.576, New colony, Ward No.4, Kheri Sampla, Distt. Rohtak.

                                                                   .….Complainants

Versus

1.      MAPSKO City Homes, Sector 26, 26-A and 27 Sonipat, Haryana through its Manager.

2.      MAPSKO Builders Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 52, North Avenue, Punjabi Bagh-West, New Delhi 110026 through its Managing Director.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate for complainants.

Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts germane to the present complaint are that   complainant purchased a floor No.52 in MG Block having built up area of 1345 sq. feet or 269 yards in the block of opposite parties (O.Ps.) company.  Buyer agreement was executed on 13.02.2013.  As per the terms and conditions of the buyer agreement, 30% of the total amount was to be paid at the time of booking of the said floor and remaining 70% amount was to be paid at the time of possession in different installments to the O.Ps. The complainants has paid a total amount of Rs.12,12,000/-.  As per the agreement, the construction of the said floor was to be completed within a period of 24 months alongwith grace period from the date of execution of agreement.  O.Ps. were supposed to complete the construction upto 13.02.2015, but, the construction over the booked block was not completed. The complainants requested the O.Ps. to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest, but, to no avail. O.Ps. sent offer of possession letter dated 13.10.2017 stating that development work was completed. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The complaint has been resisted by the O.Ps and alleged that the O.Ps. had started the construction within time and thereafter, offered the possession of the floor in question to the complainants.  There was some delay in starting the construction as construction company has left the construction work incomplete. As per clause 14(a) of the agreement, the complainants were not entitled to relief claimed for.  The possession has been offered to all the plots/ floor and SCO owners. More than 250 families were already residing in the independent floors as well as in houses. The site was well developed and completely functional. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, O.Ps entitled to forfeit the earnest money alongwith interest.  Preliminary objections about concealment of material facts, maintainability of complaint, mis-joinder of parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.       When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, one of the complainant-Surender Kumar Verma in his evidence has tendered the affidavit  as Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainants the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta company Secretary of Mapsko Builder Pvt. Ltd. and also tendered document Ex.R-1  and closed his evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.P.K.Kataria, the  learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr.Sachin Mittal, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire records including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the prosecution of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Sh.P.K.Kataria, the learned counsel for the complainants that the O.Ps. have not completed the construction within a period of 24 months alongwith grace period from the date of execution of agreement.  O.Ps. were supposed to complete the construction upto 13.02.2015, but, the construction over the booked block was not completed till date. O.Ps. sent offer of possession letter dated 13.10.2017 wrongly stated that development work was completed. Under these circumstances, the deposited amount be refunded alongwith interest  and other compensation as prayed for. 

7.                On the other hand, it has been argued by Sh.Sachin Mittal, the learned counsel for the O.Ps that  the O.Ps.  have already been offered the floor to the complainants on 13.10.2017.  The complainants were issued a demand letters on different phases and requested the complainants to deposit the installment, but, he failed to deposit the installments. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, O.Ps were entitled to forfeit the earnest money alongwith interest.  The complainants were not interested to pay the balance amount, the plea of, maintainability, concealment of material facts were also taken and finally it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

8.                In view of the submissions and after careful perusal of the entire record it is true that the floor was booked in the name of complainants and basic sale price of the floor was Rs.39,18,656/-.  In total, the complainants paid a total amount of Rs.12,12,000/-. They had made repeated requested to refund the amount but of no consequence.

9.                 This commission has scrutinized the documents placed on record and prepared at the instance of the O.Ps.    The conditions are very stringent,  when there is a delay in making the payment of the installment, a heavy rate of interest would be charged as a penalty for non-performing the terms and conditions and even  due to certain exigencies, the investor is not in a position  to continue to make the payment of the installment or due to certain exigencies, they did not continue the remaining payment of the floor, in that eventuality,  as per agreement, the builder would be at his sole discretion is entitled to forfeit the amount  deposited by the investor.

10.              Since the O.Ps. have offered the possession of the floor to the complainants.  It is the complainants only, who has defaulted himself by not making the payment of the installments well in time.  As per the terms and conditions incorporated in the buyers agreement,  the entire onus cannot be shifted upon the builder, when there is a default on the part of the complainant.  It is true that investor invested some amount, but, at the same time there are large number of hurdles which the builder has to come across, in that particular case, the offer of possession was made way back in the year 2017 and once the offer of possession has been delivered, it will be presumed that all the basic amenities including development work had been completed. Even otherwise, as per admitted fact that they filed complaint before the learned District Forum, Sonepat, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2018.   The complainants may take the appropriate steps to take the possession of the unit.        In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed.

 

 

July    05th, 2019                   Manjula                      Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                    Member                      Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench               

s.K.