Haryana

StateCommission

CC/692/2017

PAWAN BHAMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH ROYALE PANCHKULA. - Opp.Party(s)

GURMAIL SINGH DUHAN

30 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                Complaint No. 692 of 2017

                                                         Date of Institution: 03.11.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:         30.05.2019

 

Pawan Bhama son of M.L. Bhama, Flat No.292, 6^th Floor, Trishla Plus Homes, Peermushalla, Adjacent to Sector-20, Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, Punjab.

 

                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Parsvnath Developers Limited, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Corporate Office) through its Managing Director. Authorized Signatory/Officer-In-Charge.

 

2.      Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (Regd. Office) through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-In-Charge.

           

3.      KBK Environ Infrastructure Limited, Tower C, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2, DLF IN focity, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh0160101 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-In-Charge.

 

4.      Parsvnath Developer Limited, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-In-Charge.

 

 

                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

                                                                                                               

 

Present:     Shri G.S. Duhan, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Satpal Dhamija, counsel for opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4.

                   (Presence of opposite party No.3 already dispensed with).

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          The complainant, namely, Pawan Bhama has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.

2.      According to the complainant, he was looking for a flat for his family at a good location in Panchkula in the year 2013, in order to fulfill his dream of getting a home in Panchkula. He came to know about the project of Parsvnath Developers Limited in Sector-20, Panchkula and opposite party No.3 contacted the complainant, who apprised the complainant about the project of the opposite parties in Sector-20, Panchkula and also told that the said flat was under advance booking and shall be allotted soon and the builder is a big builder and of good repute. On 12.08.2013 in order to verify and check the project details, the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.3, where he met one of their executive, who apprised the complainant with regard to availability of Apartment No.T2-302 of Parsvnath Developers Limited in Sector-20, Panchkula.  The total area (approximately) was 1780 square feet (equivalent to 165.36 square meters) @ Rs.4080/- per square feet (equivalent Rs.43918.72 per square meter) and fixed total sale price of the said independent floor Rs.72,62,400/- including all charges like PLC, EDC/IDC, etc.  The complainant paid the amount of Rs.11,85,274/- (Basic Cost Rs.10,74,071/- plus Car Parking-Rs.70,000/- plus S Tax Rs.36,203/-= Total Rs.11,85,274/-) vide cheque No.047010 dated 30^th September, 2013 and Rs.7,41,194/- (Basic Cost Rs.7,18,978/- + S Tax Rs.22,216/- = Total Rs.7,41,194/-) vide cheque No.047009 dated 31^st July, 2013, both drawn on Corporation Bank, Sector-20, Panchkula to the opposite party No.3. The amount of cheques was transferred in the account of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and receipt was received by the complainant on 17.08.2013 and 30.09.2013. It was also settled that remaining amount will be paid at the time of issuance of possession letter. On 08.10.2013 the complainant received a letter from opposite parties No.1 and 2 with which the opposite parties enclosed two copies of Flat Buyer Agreement dated 30.10.2013 for the signature of the complainant. The complainant completed all the required formalities in the Flat Buyer Agreement dated 30.10.2013 and one copy was sent to the opposite parties. As per Flat Buyer Agreement, the opposite parties allotted an Apartment no.T2-302 in Parsvnath Developers Limited, Sector-20, Panchkula. The total specific area (approximately) was 1780 square feet (equivalent to 165.36 square meters) @ Rs.4080/- per square feet (equivalent Rs.43918.72 per square meter) and fixed total sale price of the said independent floor was Rs.72,62,400/- including all charges like PLC, EDC/IDC, etc. The complainant had paid the advanced amount of Rs.19,26,468/- by cheque on 31.07.2013 and 30.09.2013. The complainant received a letter on 19.11.2013 from the opposite parties regarding the deduction of 1% TDS from the amount deposited by complainant towards installment with effect from 01.06.2013. The complainant produced the deposit Form No.16B and deposited the amount of Rs.11,973/- on 25.11.2013 in the account of the opposite parties. After lapse of one and half year, the complainant received a letter on 14^th July, 2015 from the opposite party in which they showed inability to complete the construction work of tower as per agreement. The opposite parties further stated that the construction work of Towers 1 and 2 will be completed by December, 2015 and rest of the Towers within a year thereafter. The complainant again received a letter on 22.07.2014 from the opposite parties regarding the deduction of 1% TDS from the amount deposited by complainant towards installment with effect from 01.06.2013.  On 07.02.2017, the complainant was surprised after receiving a letter in which the opposite parties disclosed that there were some typographical errors in the “Schedule of Land” mentioned at Page No.14 of the said Flat Buyer Agreement and also produced the revised/correct schedule of land.  The opposite parties were trying to delay the possession causing loss to the complainant. After receiving the above said letter and Flat Buyer Agreement dated 30.10.2013, the complainant was assured about the allotment of flat, however, when various phone calls of the complainant were answered in an evasive manner by the staff of the opposite parties the complainant was astonished and shocked to find that there was no construction in Sector-20, Panchkula. The trick played by opposite parties was that the opposite parties started some excavation worth very few labourers and some basic construction material after the allotment of flats, to deceive the investors for making them think that the construction work has already started at the site, whereas that continued for a very short duration during which the opposite parties were able to recover almost 50% of the basic sale price of the proposed flat from the consumers. The very small construction work started, as a tool to extract more money from the complainant/consumers smoothly from the consumers, making them believe that the construction work was started on a fast pace, whereas after a short time only the excavation work had started which was in ruins and long grasses and jungle weeds are there. The site was abandoned, there was no one present at the site, the iron rods used in excavation work were completely rusted and rotting badly and the opposite parties were not worried at all. On 29.07.2017, the complainant received a letter, in which the opposite parties wrongly and illegally offered that if the complainant carried out the finishing work they would offer rebate to the complainant. Thereafter on various occasions the complainant made telephonic calls and visited the office of opposite parties and sought the refund of entire amount received by them as there was no construction of flat in Sector-20, Panchkula but nobody was willing to speak to the complainant on telephone and also in the office of the opposite parties on the refund and no one knew when the project will start and the tentative time of completion of the project and nothing was done. The complainant/consumer was also losing financially daily and the opportunity of buying another house for their housing needs because their hard earned money amounting to Rs.19,26,468/- with interest was already blocked by the opposite parties since 2013. The complainant was also aggrieved that his financial planning has been disrupted and they have become financially unstable because of                        these circumstances. As per agreement, the opposite parties have to complete the construction work of the independent floor within 18 months as detailed in Clause 10(a) and to hand over the physical possession of the flat at the most upto 30.04.2015. Moreover, as per the settled law, the physical possession is to be offered within the stipulated period from the date of booking. However, in order to gain more time and to shirk from its responsibility to offer the physical possession within the stipulated period, the opposite parties issued the letter of revised/corrected schedule of land after one and half year i.e. on 07.02.2017. Further in the agreement, the opposite parties mentioned that physical possession would be delivered within 18 months from the date of agreement, which was nothing more than to gain more time. However, the date of agreement is 30.10.2013 and the opposite parties were to hand over the physical possession of the independent floor at the most upto 30.04.2015. After the lapse of more than two years the opposite parties failed to hand over the physical possession of the floor to complainant. Rather, the opposite parties trying to extract more money from complainant for one reason or the other. At the time of Flat Buyer Agreement on 30.10.2013, it was settled that the complainant would pay the amount of Rs.19,49,019.54 and remaining amount will be paid at the time of offer of possession. And the complainant has already paid the above amount to the opposite parties. The complainant already requested to the opposite parties for handing over the physical possession as he was ready to pay the balance amount out of Rs.60,87,666.28 to the opposite parties. As the opposite parties neither offered the possession of the flat nor refunded the amount, hence, the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 put in appearance and sought adjournment for filing written version. A couple of adjournments were further sought for filing written version and when the requests were acceded, costs were imposed on couple of occasions as the written version was not filed despite availing a number of opportunities. On 01.02.2019, the State Commission was constrained to strike off the defence of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 as neither the written version had been filed nor the costs paid. It may be mentioned here that on the asking of the complainant, the State Commission ordered for dispensing the service of opposite party No.3.

4.      In his evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) besides tendering documents Exhibit C-1 (Receipt dated 12.08.2013), Exhibit C-2 (Receipt dated 17.08.2013), Exhibit C-3 (Receipt dated 30.09.2013), Exhibit C-4 (Final statement of account), Exhibit C-5 (Letter dated 08.10.2013), Exhibit C-6 (Letter dated 30.10.2013), Exhibit C-7 (Flat buyer agreement), Exhibit C-8 (Letter dated 19.11.2013), Exhibit C-9 (Receipt dated 25.11.2013), Exhibit C-10 (Letter dated 14.07.2015), Exhibit C-11 (Letter dated 22.07.2014), Exhibit C-12 (Corrigendum dated 07.02.2017), Exhibit C-13 (photographs), Exhibit C-14 (Letter dated 29.07.2017) and Exhibit C-15 (Customer ledger).

5.      As the defence of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 already stood struck off and presence of opposite party No.3 already dispensed with, the complaint was adjourned for today for arguments.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the complainant, the State Commission finds that the complainant had initially paid approximately an amount of Rs.20 lakhs while booking the flat and thereafter the flat buyer agreement was executed on 31.10.2013. Subsequently the opposite parties fiddled with the agreement by revising/correcting the same and mentioning about deduction of TDS on the amount deposited by the complainant.  Further, the opposite parties could not complete the construction work of the tower though the period specified in the original agreement had lapsed. The opposite parties also failed in handing over the possession of the flat and accordingly the complainant sought the refund which request of his was not entertained.

7.      The evidence led by the complainant has not been challenged by the opposite parties as despite granting of ample opportunities, they failed to file their written version and accordingly the State Commission was constrained to strike off their defence vide order dated 01.02.2019. As such, the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8.      Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 are directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of actual deposits till realization within a period of 45 days or else the complainant shall be entitled to ask for interest @ 18% per annum. The complainant shall also be entitled to collect an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4.   

            

Announced 30.05.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.