Haryana

Sonipat

CC/37/2015

SMT. PUSHPA W/O CHAND SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PARASVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.,2. PARASVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN RANGA

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.37 of 2015

                                Instituted on:10.02.2015                                             Date of order:16.07.2015

 

Smt. Pushpa Rani wife of Chand Singh, resident of Kabirpur road, Opp. Anand Cinema, Sonepat.

                                                     …….Complainant

 

                      VERSUS

 

1.Parsvnath  Developers Ltd, Regd.  And Corporate Office at 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba road, New Delhi-01 through its Chief Managing Director.

2.Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Branch office at Sector 8, NHI, Distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Ranga Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Pankaj Rohila, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant got booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in the residential project of the respondent at Sonepat.  Intially the booking was in the name of Amriya Vinay which was changed in the name of Mukesh Kumar Dahiya vide Endst. Dated 26.3.2012.  The said booking was transferred in the name of the complainant vide endorsement dated 23.1.2013.  The complainant deposited the huge amount with the respondents from time to time and the respondents assured and promised to allot the flat within a year, but of no use.  The complainant has requested the respondents to issue allotment letter and possession, but of no  use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that since the substitution of the advance registration of the plot in the upcoming project, the respondents have not launched new projects with residential plots and hence the allotment of plots has still not been made in favour of the complainant. For the reasons beyond the control of the respondents due to recession in the real estate industry, the respondents were unable to allot the plot in favour of the complainant.  The complainant duly agreed and accepted under clause no.7 of the affidavit-cum-undertaking that if the plot is not allotted in the present and future projects of the company by the respondents, then the complainant will accept the refund of the deposited amount alongwith simple interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of acceptance of the nomination by the company.  So, the complainant by way of present complaint cannot seek the reliefs which are beyond the terms and conditions as agreed to under the Advance Registration Form and Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity dated 18.1.2013.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that despite deposit of huge amount by the complainant with the respondents, the respondents have failed to issue the allotment letter and possession letter of the plot in question to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that for the reasons beyond the control of the respondents due to recession in the real estate industry, the respondents were unable to allot the plot in favour of the complainant. The complainant duly agreed and accepted under clause no.7 of the affidavit-cum-undertaking that if the plot is not allotted in the present and future projects of the company by the respondents, then the complainant will accept the refund of the deposited amount alongwith simple interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of acceptance of the nomination by the company.  So, the complainant by way of present complaint cannot seek the reliefs which are beyond the terms and conditions as agreed to under the Advance Registration Form and Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity dated 18.1.2013.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          The respondents have also placed on record Annexure R8 i.e. case law titled as Ganesh Lal Vs.Shyam. 

          But the perusal of the contents of this case law reveals that the facts of the present case and the cited law are totally different.  In the present case, there is a dispute regarding the deficiency in service in between the complainant and the builders and no issue regarding demarcation, ownership and possession is involved in the case in hand.  Whereas in the cited case, there is a dispute between two private parties and not between any individual and builders.  So, the respondents cannot take the benefit of the cited law.

          We have gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and it appears that the respondents have failed to allot any plot to the complainant despite the fact that they have received the huge amount from the complainant.  The respondents have also failed to issue any letter regarding allotment of the plot to the complainant.  Further the respondents never made any effort to allot any plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to allot the plot to the complainant.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:16.07.2015