Haryana

StateCommission

CC/755/2017

MR. HARI RAM GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ALPHA GROUP CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT - Opp.Party(s)

JIGYASA TANWAR

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:29.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:16.03.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 19.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.755 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Hari Ram Gupta, S/o Shri Om Parkash, R/o D-3, NDRI, District Karnal (Haryana).

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through counsel Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.    M/s Alpha Group Corporation Development Private Limited, 806, Meghdoot 94, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

        2^nd Address:- Golf View Corporate Towers, Wing-A, Golf Course Road, Sector-42, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

 

2.    The Managing Director, Shri Col. R.S. Sodhi, Golf View Corporate Towers, Wing-A, Golf Course Road, Sector-42, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

 

3.    The Executive Director, Shri Mukul Kumar, Golf View Corporate Towers, Wing-A, Golf Course Road, Sector-42, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.

 

….Opposite parties

Through counsel Mr. Vikas Mehra, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Vikas Mehra, counsel for opposite parties.

 

 

O R D E R

 

S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    Facts in brief giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 06.06.2011, the complainant booked a residential plot in the project of opposite parties (“Ops”) under the name and style “Alpha International City” situated at Phase-28A-29, Karnal (Haryana). Ops allotted him a plot No.439 measuring 250 sq. yards (209.025 sq. mtr.), vide allotment letter dated 23.06.2011. Basic sale consideration of the said plot was Rs.17,100/- per sq. yard (Rs.20,452.10/- per sq. mtr.) and total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.47,87,500/-. Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 19.10.2011 was also executed between the parties and as per the said agreement, OPs were supposed to complete the developmental works of project within a period of 28 months from the date of commencement of the same. Complainant paid in all a sum of Rs.42,97,500/- till December, 2012 to the OPs. It was alleged that complainant approached the OPs in September, 2014 regarding delivery of possession of plot in question as the schedule for delivery of possession was September, 2014, but they did not give him any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, on the assurance of OPs, complainant kept waiting for possession and on 30.12.2015 a letter was issued by OPs vide which they invited complainant to get his boundary wall constructed, which would ensure proper demarcation of his plot, upon which complainant visited the site in January, 2016 and found the situation regarding development was virtually to be non-existent. It was further alleged that complainant thereafter, requested the OPs to refund his deposited amount alongwith interest. Thereafter, he received letter No.ACDPL/COM/AICK/PH-IISEC-28A/471/861 dated 21.04.2017 from the OPs offering the physical possession of plot No.439 and informing that the actual and physical possession of the plot shall only be possible after receipt of entire sale consideration and other charges. Complainant made several requests to the OPs seeking refund of his deposited amount, but they failed to do so. Thus, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.42,97,500/, which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payments till realization; to pay delayed compensation for the delay in issuance of letter of possession and actual delivery of possession of plot @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period for which the plot was not offered for possession and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of physical and mental agony alongwith Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OPs, who of course appeared before this Commission, and filed their written version alleging interalia that complainant initially applied for a residential plot in their project. allotment letter dated 23.06.2011. Basic sale consideration of the said plot was Rs.17,100/- per sq. yard (Rs.20,452.10/- per sq. mtr.) and total sale consideration was Rs.47,87,500/- out of which complainant had paid only Rs.42,97,500/-. Thereafter, Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 19.10.2011 was executed between the parties. It is submitted that vide letter dated 30.12.2015, complainant was informed and advised to demarcate his plot by raising boundary wall and to pay an amount of Rs.6,33,299/-. Complainant was again appraised vide letter dated 11.05.2016, letter dated 21.04.2017 and letter dated 12.10.2017 for making the payment of remaining balance due towards him, but the same were not responded. It was further submitted that complainant himself was a defaulter from very beginning. In fact, all the roads in the licensed area which were to be developed by the OPs are fully developed and functional so now complainant has no right to get the refund of deposited amount. It was further submitted that the OPs had already offered the possession of plot in question, but the complainant himself has failed to deposit the balance amount and to take the timely possession. Other allegations made in the complaint were also denied. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Hari Ram Gupta as Ex.CA, vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the same on behalf of complainant.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Kumar (Authorized Representative of OPs) as Ex.R-1/A. Further he tendered other documents Ex.R-1/1 to Ex.R-1/27 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                The arguments were advanced by Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, learned counsel for the complainant as well as by Mr. Viks Mehra, learned counsel for opposite parties. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever other material led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment raised in the complaint including the contentions put forth 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 deposited, alongwith the interest or not? 

7.                While unfolding his arguments, it was argued by Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, learned counsel for the complainant that complainant booked residential plot in the housing project of the OPs through application No.AICK0624. Complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.439, measuring 250 sq. yards vide allotment letter dated 23.06.2011 (Ex.C-2). The total sale consideration of the said plot was Rs,47,87,500/-. She further argued that complainant paid total amount of Rs.42,97,500/- (Ex.C-4) to the Ops on different dates. Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 19.10.2011 (Ex.C-3) was also executed between the parties, according to which, possession of the plot was to be delivered complete in all respects within 28 months from the date of commencement of development works, but the OPs failed to do so. She further argued that complainant requested the Ops to refund his deposited amount in view of non-completion of the project, but they failed to do the same. Thus, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.                Mr. Vikas Mehra, learned counsel for Ops has argued that the complainant booked the plot in question for resale and investment purposes in order to make profits and not for residence of his own and thus, complaint was not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer but simply an investor. He further argued that complainant booked a plot on 06.06.2011 in the project of Ops who in turn was allotted plot No.439, measuring 250 sq. yards (209.025 sq. mtr.) was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 23.06.2011. Basic sale consideration of the said plot was Rs.17,100/- per sq. yards (Rs.20,452.10/- per sq. mtr.) and total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.47,87,500/- out of which complainant had paid only Rs.42,97,500/-. He further argued that Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties. He further argued that complainant himself was a defaulter in making the payments. Vide letter dated 30.12.2015, complainant was informed and advised to get his plot demarcated by raising boundary wall and to pay an amount of Rs.6,33,299/-. Complainant was again appraised vide letter dated 11.05.2016 and letter dated 21.04.2017 and letter dated 12.10.2017 for making the payment of outstanding balance due towards him, but the same were not heeded. He further argued that the roads in the licensed area which were to be developed by the OPs were fully developed and made functional and the complainant has no right to get the refund of deposited amount. OPs have already offered the possession of plot in question, but the complainant himself failed to deposit the balance amount and to take the timely possession. He further argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is established that upon floating a project by the builders, a plot was booked by the complainant  on 06.06.2011 for a total sale price of Rs.47,87,500/-. Plot No.439, measuring 250 sq. yards in the said project was allotted vide allotment letter dated 23.06.2011 (Ex.C-2). Complainant had paid an amount of Rs. Rs.42,97,500/- to the Ops on different dates (Ex.C-4). As per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 19.10.2011 (Ex.C-3), possession of the plot was to be delivered complete in all respects within 28 months from the date of commencement of development works, but the OPs failed to do so. No doubt, Ops have been alleging that they did offer possession of the plot in question to complainant but if we look at the assertions of the complainant in this regard, we find that he has alleged that as per the offer of Ops when he (complainant) visited the site he was shocked to see absolutely no development at the spot what all are reasonably be expected to exist such as road, severage, water supply and nearby market. Thereafter, complainant having been disappointed, requested several times to the OPs for refund of his deposited amount, but to the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 8 years has expired, the deposited amount has not been refunded by Ops. As such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there was deficiency in service of opposite parties and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.42,97,500/- (Rs. Forty two lacs ninety seven thousand and five hundred only) which he had already deposited with the Ops.  Even otherwise also, there was a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing an amount and not get back the refund of the same. Under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases, the Commission had to deal with the developers/OPs. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

10.              As regard the rate of interest to be awarded, it may be relevant to keep the following factors into consideration keeping in view the recent periodic revision of repo rate by Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India and consequent upward revision of Marginal Cost of Landing Rate (MCLR) by Nationalized Banks, there has been an increase in lending rate by the Nationalized banks accordingly it would, in our considered view, be just fair and reasonable to award 9% as rate of interest to the complainant.

11.              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 of the amount of Rs.42,97,500/- (Rs. Forty two lacs ninety seven thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization. In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/- (Twenty one thousand) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.11,000/-  (Eleven thousand only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable. 

12.              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.

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

 

Pronounced on 19^th April, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench            

 

 

 

S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench

R.K