Delhi

StateCommission

CC/367/2014

JAGDISH DARAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UNITECH LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.PHOGAT

29 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                           Date of Arguments:  29.08.17

          Date of Decision:      07.09.17

Complaint No. 367/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

1. Shri Jagdish Daral

S/o Late Shri Jai Singh Daral

 

2. Mrs. Rekha Daral

W/o Mr. Jagdish Daral

Both resident of H.No. 312

Sector-31, Gurgaon

Haryana-122001.                                                                          ……Complainants

 

                                                                        Versus

1. M/s Unitech Limited

Regd. Office: 6, Community Center

Saket, New Delhi

Through Managing Director

 

2. M/s Pioneer Urban Land &

Infrastructure Ltd.

Regd. Off: A-22, 3^rd Floor, Green Park

Aurobindo Marg,

New Delhi.                                                                                  …..Opposite Party

                

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

          The case of the complainants is that they booked commercial space in Shopping Complex in Business Zone in Nirvana Country, Gurgaon, Haryana measuring 1518.29 square ft. super area with one car parking space bearing No. 504, Block B, 5^th Floor.  The same was booked vide agreement dated 23.12.06 for Rs.56,28,945/- for personal use to earn livelihood.  Possession was to be delivered by 31.05.09.  They paid total price as per demand raised by OP 1. Possession was handed over to them on 28.06.13 after delay of 53 months and seven days.  As per clause No. 2.3 compound interest @ 18% per annum was chargeable to the complainant, compounded quarterly for delayed period of installment. As against this OP paid meager amount at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. ft.per month which came to Rs.3,29,406/- vide letter dated 09.02.12 for delay in handing over possession .The same is unjustified and against principles of equity. OP is liable to pay compensation @ 18% per month compounded quarterly which comes to Rs. 65,28,754/-.

2.       As per agreement complainant was to pay interest free maintenance security deposit of Rs. 98,689/- whereas OP charged Rs. 1,36,620/-.  They are liable to refund difference of Rs.37,931/-.  Hence this complaint.

3.       OP was served for 21.09.15.  Ms. Suman Matoo appeared on said date and received a copy of complaint.  WS was directed to be filed within 8 weeks but it failed to do so.  On 04.03.16 right to file WS was closed.

4.       Complainants have filed evidence by way of affidavit of complainant No.1.

5.       We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments.  It is true that agreement provides for payment of penalty for delay in handing  over possession @ 7% per sq. ft. p.m but the said payment is very meager. Such a term makes agreement full of unfair trade practice. In Satish Pandey vs. Subhash III 2015 CPJ 440 National Commission held that such an agreement is not binding.  It was further held that grant of 12% simple interest would be fair.

6.       In view of the same OP is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant till the date of handing over of possession after adjusting Rs. 3,29,406/- already adjusted.  OP is also directed to refund Rs. 37,931/- on account of excess interest maintenance deposit received by it.  The order shall be complied with within 45 days.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                           (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

sbm