Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1155/2015

MR. JAGBIR SINGH KESAR & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SNG VARDHMAN TECHNO BUILD PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

                                                           (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                      Date of Arguments: 26.04.17

                                                                                                                  Date of decision: 03.05.17

 

Complaint No. 1155/2015

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Jagbir Singh Kesar

    S/o Mr. Dasaandhi Ram

    Aged about 72 years

    R/o House No. 1551

    Sector 34 D

    Chandigarh

 

2.  Mrs. R.K.Arora

     D/o Mr. Sohan Singh

     Aged about 65 years

     R/o House No. 1551

     Sector-34 D

     Chandigarh                                                                                                …….Complainants

                                                                        Versus

 

SNG Vardhman Techno Build (P) Ltd.

Having its Registered Office at

112, Indraprakash Building

21, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                                                          ……Respondent

CORAM

                                                       

HON’BLE SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the  Judgement?  Yes}

^{2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

 

Hon’ble Shri O.P.GUPTA

                                                               

                                                JUDGEMENT

The case of the complainant is that they decided to purchase a property for carrying on consultancy as complainant No. 1 was retired IAS officer and wanted to carry on consultancy alongwith complainant No. 2.  They were managing their work from Chandigarh but needed an office place in Delhi NCR where they wanted to establish their consultancy service to earn livelihood.  In July 2010, they contacted OP who told them about this project “Vardhman SNG Plaza” located at Plot No. P-8, Ansal Golf Link, Greater Noida.  They booked an office on 2^nd floor and were asked to pay Rs. 21,21,600/- initially.  They  paid the amount on 09.08.10 and an agreement  was entered into on 27.08.10.  As per agreement possession was to be given by Sept., 2010.  The OP assured that in case possession is not given by Sept., 2010, it would pay the assured return of 1% per month i.e. 12% per annum on the amount paid till the possession is delivered.  Total area was 408 sq. ft. at basic price of Rs.6500/- per sq. ft.  The total consideration was Rs. 26,52,000/-.

2.         Complainants were promised by the OP that OP would pay Rs.65/- per sq. ft. per month after handing over of possession in Sept., 2010, in case property is not occupied by the complainant, OP would find a lessee for said premises.  Period of lease was to be 9 years with lock in period of three years.  In September, 2010 complainant visited the site and were shocked to see that only commercial work of the project was complete and no work was going on. The Ops accepted their mistake and told that they had intentionally and deliberately lured the complainants to buy the property by mentioning date of possession as Sept., 2010.  The complainants were asked to wait till April 2011. In February, 2011 they were shocked to see the same status.  The OP started making payment of Rs. 21,216/- from 01.03.11.  This amount was assured to be paid from Sept., 2010.  On 27.04.11 the complainants were asked to sign builder buyer agreement in which another guaranteed lease in agreement was entred into.  The complainants were promised that they would be paid Rs. 65/- per sq. ft. per month after handing over possession in April 2011. Ops were to find lessee for the said premises.  Payments were made on and off till 02.01.14 after which OP stopped making payment.  Hence this complaint for directing OP to pay compensation for not handing over possession and causing financial loss and mental agony.  The complainant has prayed for arrears of committed returns from Sept., 2010 to Feb., 2011 @ Rs. 21,226/- p.m.  They have further prayed for committed return from 01.02.2014 to 30.09.2015 at the same rate. Complainants have prayed for refund of Rs. 21,21,600/- paid by them.  Escalation has also been claimed.  According to complainant the price as on date of complaint was Rs. 1500/- per sq. ft. and difference between the agreed price and current market price was Rs. 34,06,800/-, compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony, litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- has also been prayed.

2.         OP was served for 25.04.16.  On the said date Shri Lokesh Sharma, Vice-President of OP appeared and received copy of complaint. He was directed to file WS within four weeks and he failed to do so.  His right to file WS was closed on 15.09.16.  In their evidence, the complainants filed affidavit of complainant No. 1.  The same is reproduction of the case setup in the complaint. Necessary documents were exhibited.

            We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  OP has made payment from 01.03.11 till 31.12.13.  The assured return of Rs. 65/- per sq. ft. comes to approx. 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 21,21,600/- paid by the complainant.  Thus OP is liable to pay the said sum for the left out period from 01.09.2010 till 28.02.2011.  OP is also liable to pay assured return of the same rate from 01.02.14 to 30.09.15.  OP must refund the amount of Rs. 21,21,600/- @ agreed rate of 12% per annum as discussed above, from 01.10.15 till the date of refund.

            The complainants cannot claim escalation because they are being allowed interest.  Interest is nothing but cost of inflation.  Regarding compensation it may be observed that claimant cannot claim interest as well as compensation.  The reason being that there is no provision in consumer protection Act for granting interest.  Interest is given as compensation.

            To sum up the OP is directed to refund  Rs.21,21,600/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.10.15 till the date of refund.  It is also directe topay assured return from Sept., 2010 to Feb., 2011 and from Feb., 2014 to 30.09.2015 @ Rs. 21,226/- per month.  In addition OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Order to be complied  with within 45 days.

            One copy of the order be sent to both the parties.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASVATA)                                                                                                             (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)