Haryana

StateCommission

CC/340/2017

DEEP PRAKASH TEWARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJVIR SINGH SIHAG

13 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:30.05.2017

                Date of final hearing:13.02.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:13.02.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.340 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Deep Prakash Tewari son of Sh. R.C. Tewari, through his wife and special power of attorney Meenakshi Tiwari, resident of House No.182, 1^st Floor, Friends Enclave Sector-29, Faridabad (Haryana).

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. R.S. Sihag, Advocate

Versus

 

ORS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office at UGF-33, Parsvnath City Mall, Sector-12, Faridabad, through its Managing Director.

….Opposite party

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. R.S. Sihag, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the opposite party.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant applied for a residential unit with the opposite party with a booking amount of Rs.2,93,000/-.  The opposite party allotted flat No.402, Block B-2 on 4^th floor of the Group Housing complex having area of 1200 sq. ft. in Royal Residency, Sector-89, Faridabad to the complainant. Flat Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the complainant and the opposite party on 05.09.2009 as per Ex.C-2. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.21,60,100/- to the Ops against total sale consideration of Rs.19,56,000/-. It is alleged that in the allotment letter, the number of flat was wrongly mentioned as 404 instead of 402. The wrong mentioning of flat number is evident from the fact that in all the receipts/documents the opposite party has mentioned the flat number as 402. It is also alleged that at the time of allotment, the opposite party had assured the complainant that the said flat will have the facilities like sewerage, link road, water supply, electricity as well as other basic amenities. As per the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 36 months from the date of agreement. But despite payment of Rs.21,60,100/-, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite  party on 23.04.2017 seeking refund of the amount paid by him but he did not receive any response from OP. Complainant made several requests to the opposite party either to give the possession or to refund his hard earned money but the OP did not consider his genuine request. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to refund Rs. 21,60,100/-  which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice was issued to the opposite party and the written statement was filed, wherein the OP admitted that the complainant applied for a residential flat in its project and flat No.402, Block B-2 on 4^th floor of the Group Housing complex, having an area of 1200 sq. ft. in Royal Residency, Sector-89, Faridabad was allotted to him. It is also admitted that an agreement in this regard was executed on 05.09.2009 between the parties. It is admitted that in the allotment letter, number of flat was wrongly mentioned as 404 instead of 402. It is denied that the payment was made by the complainant despite there being no substantial construction on the site. It is submitted that the license had not been renewed by the Government agency. However, due to non-renewal of license, the opposite party was not in a position to complete the work and to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant ever served legal notice dated 23.04.2017 to the opposite party. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on part of the OP.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A of Meenakshi Tewari, authorized representative of complainant-Deepak Prakash Tewari  vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the same.

4.                On the other hand, evidence of opposite party was closed vide court order dated 09.12.2022 on account of opposite party not recording its evidence despite availing six opportunities.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. R.S. Sihag, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment made in the complaint 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 complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the OP, alongwith the interest or not? 

7.                Undisputedly, the complainant had applied for a residential flat in the project of opposite party who had allotted flat No.402, Block B-2 on 4^th floor of the Group Hosing complex having area of 1200 sq. ft. in Royal Residency, Sector-89, Faridabad to him through allotment letter dated 05.09.2009. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.21,60,100/- to the opposite party (Ex.C-5 colly & Ex.C7). It is also undisputed that the Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the complainant and Ops on 05.09.2009(Ex.C-2), according to which possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 36 months from the date of agreement. It is also not disputed that construction work was not completed and opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question despite the fact that the complainant kept waiting for several years. Since, the opposite party did not complete the construction work till date, there was no possibility of delivery of possession of the flat within the stipulated period, therefore, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of his deposited amount. In view of the above, it is held that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

8.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 21,60,100/- (Rs. Twenty one lacs sixty thousand and one hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization.  In case, there is delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would be further entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.44,000/- (Forty four 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 attracted.

9.                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.

10.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand(s) disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

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

Pronounced on:13 ^th February, 2023                                                                                 

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                                            (President)    

 

 

 Manjula

M.S.                                                                                                                                         (Member)