Delhi

StateCommission

CC/09/151

HEMLATA JAIMINI AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE CONSTRUCTION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                                                         Date of Decision : 24.05.2016

                   Date of arguments heard : 17.05.2016

Complaint Case No.151/2009

 

1. Smt. Hemlata Jaimini

W/o Sh. Rakesh Jaimini

 

2. Shri Rakesh Jaimini

S/o Sh. M.V. Jaimini

 

BOTH RESIDENTS OF

 

669, Sector-14

Sonepat

Haryana-130005

……Complainants

Vs.

 

M/s. OMAXE Construction ltd.

Registered Office

7, Local Shopping Centre

Kalkaji

New Delhi-110 019.

…Opposite party

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.         It is not necessary to mention the facts in detail as during the pendency of the case, the complainants has taken possession of flat from the OP. The controversy remains regarding payment of penality for delayed possession.
2.         According the complainants they purchased booking of Villa No. 1770 A, lBlock D built on a plot of land admeasuring 267 Sq. Yds                                                                                                                                                                                         with a built up Super Area of 1104.33 Sq. ft. from Sh. Manav Singhal who booked the Villa with the OP in 2005. The transfer in favour of complainants was approved by OP in 2006.  Flat Buyer Agreement was executed and OP assured to offer the possession within 18 months i.e. by May, 2007. Against total consideration of Rs.32,59,764/-, the first allottee deposited Rs.29,76,509/- which is more than 90% of the total sale consideration of the said Villa. Fresh Flat Buyers Agreement dated 23.4.08 was executed in favour of the complainants. Complainants were residing in a rented accommodation and paying Rs.7,000/- p.m. as rent. As per clause 26(f) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, the OP was to pay an amount of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. of super area per month for the period of delay.
3.         The OPs contested the case. Parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit and then written arguments. On 28.4.15, the complainants moved an application stating therein that on 12.12.14, the OP handed over statement of account showing balance amounts to be paid by the complainants after adjusting penalty of Rs.3,09,696/- which they were required to pay as penalty for delaying possession. They applied for loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.12.14 and paid Rs.10,54,450/- inclusive of late payment charges @24% p.a. to the OP. The OP handed over physical possession and keys of the Villa to the complainants on25.3.15 after registration of the Villa was done on 19.2.15. Now they prayed for directions to OP to pay rent from April, 2008 to May, 2009 amounting to Rs.84,000/-, Rs.30,000/- for electrification and civil work in the rented premises, Rs.3,00,375/- for delay of 25 months in delivering the possession @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. from May 2007 to May 2009. Interest of Rs.8,33,422/- @24% p.a. from April 2008 to May 2009 and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4.         I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
5.         Counsel for the OP submitted that penalty for delayed possession has already been adjusted while delivering possession and receiving balance amount from the complainant.
6.         The Counsel for the complainant submits that had it been so, the OP would have insisted on withdrawl of the complaint at that time itself. Adjustment was out of interest for delayed payment claimed by OP. Same has nothing to do with penalty for delayed possession.
7.         The arguments of the complainant appears to be justified to some extent. But claim for rent, claim for interest on amount paid by them is not at all justified. There is no agreement for interest payable by OP, the said prayers are declined.
8.         Anyhow, the area of the Villa is 2403 sq. ft. on which penalty comes to Rs.12,015/- p.m. There is a delay of about 50 months in handing over the possession from 2011 to 2015. The penalty comes to Rs.6 lacs approximately.
9.         OPs are directed to pay Rs.6 lacs to the complainant as penalty for delayed possession within 45 days from today.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 (O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)