Haryana

StateCommission

CC/501/2018

DURGA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ GUPTA

02 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  Case No.501 of  2018

Date of the Institution:29.08.2018

Date of Decision:02.07.2019

 

Durga Sharma W/o Sh. Brij Bhushan R/o House No.11/80, Chint Puri Colony, Sonepat, (Haryana).

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Director.

Site Office:- M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., “Espania Heights”, Kamaspur, Sonepat through its Authorized Person.

 

                                                .….Opposite Party

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Gupta,  Advocate for complainant.

Opposite party already ex-parte.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    Complainant has filed complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) pleaded therein that on 04.07.2011 she booked a residential Flat on ground floor bearing No.EF-32/GF, having area of 1224 sq. ft. in the project of opposite party (O.P.) namely “Espania Floors” in District Sonepat. The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.26,00,000/- and total price of the flat was Rs.29,19,708/-. The complainant had deposited Rs.27,82,718/- to the Op at different phases. Floor buyer’s agreement was executed in between the complainant and O.P on 14.05.2015. As per floor buyer’s agreement, the period of offering possession was provided and agreed to be 30 months from the date of execution of floor buyer’s agreement, but, till date no construction work on the said project was going on. The O.P. has committed the unfair trade practices and also cheated the complainant and other innocent people also. The complainant requested the O.P to refund the amount, but till date O.P. was not paid any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, under the constraint circumstances, the complainant had no option but to file the present complaint with the prayer that the appropriate direction may be issued to the O.P. to make payment of a sum of Rs.27,82,718/-  which had been deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 14% per annum from the date of deposits till the date of actual payment and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony etc. and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.P., but refused to accept the notice. So, O.P was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.01.2019.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording ex-parte evidence, the complainant in her evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.  With his kind assistance the entire records including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led by the complainant during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this court as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he has already deposited alongwith the interest. 

6.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Sh.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant that as far as the executing the apartment buyers agreement is concerned, the same was executed by the O.P on 14.05.2015 and a sum of Rs.27,82,718/- has been paid by the complainant on different phases to the O.P.  As per the floor buyer’s agreement Ex.C-3 and the terms and conditions incorporated therein including date of delivery of the possession, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the O.P. within 30 months i.e. on or before 13.11.2017.

7.                The period within which, the possession of the flat was to be delivered had already expired and under these circumstances the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount which he had already paid alongwith interest. 

8.                As per the submissions made by Sh.Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and after perusal of the entire record as well as appreciation of the evidence during the prosecution of the complaint.  It is true that the O.P. has launched a residential housing project under the name and style of “Espania Floors” in the area of District Sonepat. The complainant had opted to book an apartment and initially, he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- on 04.07.2011 as booking amount. Thereafter, the floor buyer’s agreement was executed on 14.05.2015 and as per the agreement, which contains the terms and conditions of completion of the project and the most important part is that delivery of the possession within the period of 30 months. As per the details of the payment mentioned in account statement of complainant (Ex.C-2) the complaint had paid sum of Rs.27,82,718/- to the O.P.

9.                Thus, it is apparently clear that complainant had deposited Rs.27,82,718/-  including service tax to the O.P. whereas, the total price of the unit was Rs.29,19,708/-. As per the floor buyer’s agreement executed by the O.P on 14.05.2015, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 30 months. It is also a clear fact that, till date construction work at the said project is not completed, which proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P. The possession cannot be delivered under these constraint circumstances. The O.P. cannot be allowed to utilize or to enjoy the hardened money deposited by the complainant for getting the unit booked for their livelihood. It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that they would collect their hardened money from the general public and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the general public have invested their hardened money is not completed.  The complainant had to wait more than period of two years for delivery of possession.  In such like matters the court has to be callous enough and the O.P. is to be dealt with severe hands  and cannot be allowed to mis-utilizing the funds of the general public or to have  a mis-directions of funds, which ultimately has been resulted into non-completion of the project and ultimately, it is the complainant  or the general public who had to suffer. In such circumstances, it is evidently clear that complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.27,82,718/- and as such the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount in all proposition, the possession of the apartment cannot be delivered even in coming years and moreover, a period of more than two years have already been expired. Hence, the O.P. is directed to make a payment of Rs.27,82,718/- alongwith interest @ 12/% per annum  from the date of respective deposits and till realization.   Hence, this question is answered in affirmative.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of three months in that eventuality the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.51,000/- for compensation of mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/-  as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable.

 

 

July  02^nd, 2019                      Manjula                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                        Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench               

R.K.