Haryana

StateCommission

CC/757/2017

SUKHDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA CHATRATH

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:29.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:21.03.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 21.03.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.757 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Sukhdev Singh S/o Shri Amrik Singh, R/o Modern Jewelers, Sarrafabazar, Karnal, Haryana.

                                                                                       .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate

 

Versus

 

M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.,

Address-1 :-

11 Vandana Building, Tolestoy Marg, UG-Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

Address-2 :-

Office No.123-124, 2^nd Floor, TDI Mall, TDI City, G.T. Road, Kundli, District Sonepat, Haryana.

….Opposite party

Through counsel Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.  Nishant Maini, Advocate alongwith Mr. Sukhdev Singh, complainant in person.

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 18.11.2005, complainant applied for a residential plot, measuring 250 sq. yards in the residential project of opposite party (OP) under the name and style of “TDI City” situated at Kundli, District Sonepat (Haryana). Basic sale price of the plot was Rs.21,87,500/- and total sale price of the plot was Rs.26,03,125/-. OP allotted a plot bearing No.L-56 vide allotment letter dated 10.12.2005.  Complainant in all paid an amount of Rs.23,84,375/- to the OP on different dates as per table below:-

Sr. No.	Receipt No.	Dated	Amount
1	21554	27.01.2006	Rs.2,18,750/-
2	21555	27.01.2006	Rs.49,375/-
3	PLC-848	27.01.2006	Rs.50,000/-
4	29108	06.04.2006	Rs.4,36,875/-
5	29547	13.04.2006	Rs.2,18,750/-
6	29548	13.04.2006	Rs.49,375/-
7	46279	17.08.2006	Rs.2,18,750/-
8	50831	06.10.2006	Rs.2,18,750/-
9	50832	06.10.2006	Rs.49,375/-
10	55374	13.12.2006	Rs.2,18,750/-
11	101440	17.07.2009	Rs.2,18,125/-
Total                Rs.23,84,375/-

 

Plot Buyer Purchase Agreement was also executed on 09.05.2017. As per the terms and conditions incorporated in the said agreement, OP agreed to hand over possession of plot in question within a period of 30 days after getting entire sale consideration of the plot. The OP has already taken the entire cost of the plot, but failed to deliver the possession of plot in question. Thereafter, complainant also served a legal notice dated 28.08.2017 upon the OP and requested for refund of deposited amount alongwith interest, but it did not pay any heed to the same. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainant prayed that OP be directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.23,84,375/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% p.a and Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of damages suffered by complainant: to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation etc.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OP, upon which it appeared and filed its written statement.  OP in written statement submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not consumer but he is investor who applied for plot in question for commercial purposes and not for the residential purpose of his own. However, it was admitted that the complainant booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the residential project of OP. Basic sale price of the plot was Rs.21,87,500/- and total sale price of the plot was Rs.26,03,125/-. It was also admitted that OP allotted a plot bearing No.L-56 vide allotment letter dated 10.12.2005 and complainant paid an amount of Rs.23,84,375/- and Plot Buyer Purchase Agreement was also executed on 09.05.2017. Further it was submitted that after signing the said agreement, complainant started demanding refund of the amount deposited with the OP and has sent the legal notice dated 28.08.2017. It was further submitted that complainant himself has been a defaulter in paying the demands of OP as per the agreement. However, due to some fortuitous circumstances, OP could not offer the possession of plot in question, but gave an option of alternative plot vide its letter dated 06.06.2018. Other allegations raised in the complaint were also denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Sukhdev Singh has tendered in evidence his own sworn affidavit as Ex.CA vide which he reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Sunil Kakran, Authorized Signatory of OP as Ex.RA alongwith other documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Nishant Maini, learned counsel for the complainant and  Mr. Munish Gupta, learned counsel for OP. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever other material has been led during the proceedings of the complaint were properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the 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 had already deposited, alongwith the interest or not? 

7.                While unfolding has arguments, Mr. Nishant Maini, learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that as far as the execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement (Ex.C-4) is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that complainant has paid Rs.23,84,375/- (Receipts Ex. C-1 & Ex.C-3 colly) to the OP. It is also not in dispute that the total sale price of the plot was Rs.26,03,125/-. As per the Plot Buyer’s Agreement and the terms and conditions incorporated therein, including date of delivery of the possession of the apartment, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the OP within 30 days after making the entire payment subject to some reservations. The period within which, the possession of the plot was to be delivered has already expired despite complainants having deposited an amount of Rs. 23,84,375/-.  In these circumstances, the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he has already paid, as he do not think that OP will be able to put him into possession of the plot.

8.                On the other hand, it has been argued by Mr. Munish Gupta, learned counsel for the OP that the plot in question was purchased by the complainant not for his personal use but the same was purchased for commercial purposes and to earn profit and not for earning his livelihood and thus, complainant does not fall under the definition of “consumer”. It was further argued that the Plot Buyer Agreement dated 09.05.2017 was executed between the complainant and OP but complainant has not complied with terms and conditions of the same and committed default in making timely payments. The OP has not committed any breach of agreement. The complainant has no right to demand the refund as builder has not refused to complete the developmental work and offer possession of plot to the complainants.    Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the refund and interest as prayed for.

9.                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 OP-builders, residential plot was purchased by the complainant for a total cost of Rs.26,03,125/- against which an amount of Rs. 23,84,375/-  has already been paid.  Plot Buyers Agreement dated 09.05.2017 is also not disputed. To the utter surprise of this Commission it is quite surprising as to how inspite of the fact that period of more than 17 years had expired, the possession of the plot has not been delivered by OP.  As such, there was a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement on behalf of the OP. It is the normal trend of the developers that  developer would collect 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 hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly, the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there was deficiency in services of OP and thus, complainant was well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.23,84,375/-  (Rs. Twenty three lakhs eighty four thousand three hundred seventy five only)  which he has already deposited with the OP. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for his having invested a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and 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 has to deal with the developers 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 Lending 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.23,84,375/-  (Rs. Twenty three lakhs eighty four thousand three hundred seventy five 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 complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five 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.              Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.              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.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 21^st March, 2023                     

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

           

 

                                                                                                S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                     Addl. Bench

 

R.K