Haryana

StateCommission

CC/354/2018

BIKRAMJIT MAHENDROO AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ANJU KOHLI

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.354 of  2018

Date of the Institution:04.06.2018

Date of Decision: 04.02.2020

 

1.      Mr.Bikramjit Mahenderoo S/o Mr. Salig Ram Mahendroo, R/o H.No.868, Sector-7, Panchkula.

 

2.      Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sawhney S/o Mr. Bansi Lal Sawhney, R/o H.No.380, Sector-17, Panchkula.

 

                                                                   .….Complainants

Versus

1.      The Managing Director, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, 6^th floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001.

 

2.      The Manager/Authorized Signatory, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, Parsvnath Royale, Sector 20 Panchkula.

 

3.      The Managing Director, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, Parsvnath metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

 

4.      The Managing Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, SCO No.1, 1^st Floor, Sector-26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

                                                .….Opposite Parties

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

Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Anuj Kohli, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the opposite parties. (Defence of the O.Ps. have already been struck off vide order dated 15.05.2019).

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present consumer complaint are that they (complainants) purchased the residential flat bearing No.T3-302 in the project of opposite parties namely “PARSVNATH ROYALE” Sector-20, Panchkula. Buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on 02.08.2007 (Ex.C-1) at Panchkula, but, wrongly shown to have been executed at New Delhi.      The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.57,85,000/-.   The flat was purchased under construction linked payment plan.  In total, the complainants had paid Rs.52,27,254/- to O.Ps.   As per the terms and  conditions of the buyer agreement, the O.Ps were bound  to deliver the possession of the unit within 36+6 (grace period) =42 months from the date of commencement of construction  i.e. 30.04.2008. The possession of the flat was to be delivered on or before 30.04.2011.    The O.Ps. failed to deliver the possession of the flat within stipulated period.  They requested the O.Ps. to refund the amount alongwith interest, but, O.Ps. failed to refund the amount. Thus there was deficiency in service  and mal trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

2.                Notice being issued, opposite parties appeared, but, did not file the reply and accordingly, defence of the opposite parties was struck off vide order dated 15.05.2019.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainants, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered joint affidavit Ex.CW1/A vide which they have reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Anuj Kohli, the learned counsel for the complainants  as well as Sh.Satpal Dhamija, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount which they have already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

6.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Anuj Kohli, the learned counsel for the complainants that as far as the executing the buyers agreement  (Ex.C-1)  dated 02.08.2007 is concerned it is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the basic price of the flat was Rs.57,85,000/-.    A total sum of Rs.52,27,254/- had been paid by the complainants to the  O.Ps.  As per the buyers agreement, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainants by the O.Ps. on or before 30.04.2011.  However inspite of the fact that 85% of the total amount stands paid alongwith the amount of covered car parking by the complainants. The period within which, the possession of the flat was to be delivered had already expired and under these circumstances the complainants had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which they had already paid. 

7.                On the other hand, it has been vehemently argued by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. that there is an inordinate delay in making the payment of the installments by the complainants. The project is likely to be completed.  Once the amount deposited by the complainants had already been invested in the project, there is no question of refunding the said amount.  The delay if any in completing the project was beyond the reasons and control of the O.Ps. and as such, the complainants are not entitled to get the refund of the amount.  Similarly, they are not also entitled to get any interest and the complaint being devoid of merits deserves for its dismissal.

8.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, flat was purchased by the complainants for which 85% amount  i.e. Rs.52,27,254/- had been paid.  As per buyer agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within period of 36+6 months complete  in all respects.   To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 11 years had expired, the possession of the flat has not been delivered by O.Ps.    As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps.  It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that they would collect the hard earned money from the individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their money is not completed. As a result thereof the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainants are well within their legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.52,27,254/- (Fifty Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Four Only) which they had already deposited with the O.Ps.  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainants for investing a huge amount and the possession has not been delivered within the stipulated period and under the constraint circumstances, the complainants 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/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals.  The possession was to be  delivered within the period of three years from the date of commencement of the construction, which started on 30.04.2008 (Ex.C-2).  As per terms and conditions incorporated in the letter of allotment and other documents, the possession was to be delivered on or before 30.04.2011, but, the possession has not been delivered.  Even otherwise also, the defence of the opposite parties had already been struck off and there is no evidence to rebut the affirmative evidence led on behalf of the complainants. As such the question is answered in the affirmative.

9.                Hence with the above observation and discussion there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.52,27,254/- (Fifty Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Four Only)  alongwith interest @ 08%  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 complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainants are also entitled  of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainants are also entitled of Rs.50,000/-  (Fifty Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

February 04th, 2020        Ram Singh Chaudhary,             T.P.S.Mann,                                        Judicial Member                        President                                  

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)