Haryana

StateCommission

CC/115/2020

SOHAN LAL GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSAVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD, - Opp.Party(s)

SOHAN LAL GOYAL

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

  Date of Instituion:19.08.2020

                Date of final hearing:20.02.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement:29.03.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2020

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Sohan Lal Goyal s/o Sh. Sh. Tara Chand.

2.      Saroj Goyal w/o Sh. Sh. Sohan Lal Goyal.

Both residents of House No.2577, Sector-15, Panchkula.                                                                                     .….Complainants

Through counsel Ms. Anurag Goyal, Advocate

Versus

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., 6^th Floor, Arunachal Buidling, 19, Barakhmaba Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., through its Local Manager, Parsvnath Royale, Panchkula, Sector-20, Part-II, Panchkula.

….Opposite parties

Proceeded against ex-parte

 

 

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

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the complainants.

Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the Opposite Parties (already proceeded against ex-parte).

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that as the complainants were looking for a residential house in the year, 2010 so, they were approached by the representatives of opposite parties (‘Ops’) and being convinced they booked a flat in the month of December, 2010. Ops allotted flat No.T3-402, 4^th floor, having total area of 1780 sq. ft. in the residential scheme of Ops under the name and style “Royale Parsvnath” Sector-20, Part-II, Panchkula (Haryana). Total sale price of the flat was Rs.57,85,000/-. Flat Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties on 03.02.2011. The complainants in all made a payment of Rs.50,58,766/- to the Ops on different dates.

2.                Complainants had opted for construction linked plan. As per terms and conditions of said agreement, possession of the said flat was to be given in 36 months from the date of agreement alongwith a grace period of 6 months i.e. on 03.08.2014 and in case of failure, penalty @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month was to be paid by the OPs to the complainants. The OPs have already taken more than the cost, but still failed to deliver the possession of unit in question. Thereafter, complainants also requested the Ops to refund their deposited amount but they were also not ready to do so. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainants prayed that OPs be directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.50,58,766/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops, upon which they did not appear before this Commission and were thus proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 25^th May, 2022 & 12^th September, 2022.

4.                When the complaint was posted for recording ex-parte evidence of the complainants, Mr. Sohan Lal Goyal (complainant No.1) tendered in to evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA whereby he reiterated all the averments of the complaint and further tendered various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the same on behalf of complainants.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Ms. Anurag Goyal, learned counsel for the complainants. However,  Mr. Satpal Dhamija also appeared and addressed the arguments for the OPs despite the fact that they were proceeded against ex-parte because any of the parties could appear and argue the matter at any stage of the case. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averments raised in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants, 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 her arguments, it has been argued by Ms. Anurag Goyal, learned counsel for the complainants that as far as the execution of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement Ex.C-2 is concerned, the same could not be disputed as entire evidence of complainant has remained unrebutted. It could also not be disputed that complainants have paid Rs.50,58,765/- (Ex. C-3 colly) to the OPs. It is also not controverted that the total sale price of the apartment was Rs.57,85,000/-.  As per the Flat 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 complainants by the OPs within 36 months with grace period of 06 months, subject to some reservations. The period within which, the possession of the unit was to be delivered has already expired despite complainants having deposited an amount of Rs.50,58,765/-. In these circumstances, the complainants had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he had already paid, as they do not think that Ops will be able to put them into possession of the flat. 

8.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it stands proved that upon floating a project by the Ops-builders, residential unit was purchased by the complainants for a total cost of Rs.57,85,000/- against which an amount of Rs.50,58,765/-  has already been paid.  Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.02.2011 also stands proved. As per the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered within a period of 36 months with grace period of 06 months, complete in all respects subject to some reservation. To the utter surprise of this Commission it is quite surprising as to how inspite of the fact that period of more than 8 years had expired, the possession of the apartment has not been delivered by OPs.  As such, there was a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement on behalf of the Ops. It is the normal trend of the developers that  developer would collect their 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 is deficiency in services of OPs and thus, complainants are well within their legal rights to receive refund of the amount of Rs.50,58,765/-  (Rs. Fifty lacs fifty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty five only)   which they have already deposited with the OPs. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainants for their having invested a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, they had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases, the Commission had 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.

9.                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.

10.              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.50,58,765/-  (Rs. Fifty lacs fifty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty 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.

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

12.              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.

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

 

Pronounced on 29^th March, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

           

 

                                                                                                S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                     Addl. Bench

R.K