Haryana

Sonipat

277/2014

NARESH KUMAR S/O RAMESH CHADN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE MANAGER PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.,2. THE SITE MANAGER PARASVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Surender malik

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.277 of 2014

                                Instituted on:20.10.2014                                             Date of order:12.08.2015

 

Naresh Kumar son of Ramesh Chand, r/o H.No.529A, Ward no.28, Sonepat.

 

                                                     …….Complainant

 

                     VERSUS

 

1.Manager/Director Parsvnath  Developers Ltd, Regd.  And Corporate Office at 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 1912 Barakhamba road, New Delhi-01.

2.The site Manager, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Parsvnath City,  GT road, Sonepat.

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Surender Malik 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 one Shilpa Mahajan booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Parsvnath City Sonepat developed by the respondents at the rate of Rs.3500/- per sq. yards  and paid total sum of Rs.5,25,000/- from time to time to the respondents.  The said Shilpa Mahajan transferred/sold the said plot to the complainant on 12.11.2008 and thus, now the complainant is the consumer of the respondents.  The complainant has requested the respondents so many times to hand over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant and to execute & register the sale deed but in vain.  The complainant is residing in Sector 23 Sonepat in a rented house and is paying the house rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the landlord.  The complainant served the respondents with legal notice dated 3.9.2014 through his counsel, but the respondents have not bothered to reply the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that on 4.6.2014, Shilpa Mahajan made application for advance registration of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in the upcoming next project of the company.  She deposited the amount  from time to time with the respondents and thereafter she requested the company to assign her rights in favour of the complainant and the company has confirmed the transfer rights of the complainant vide letter dated 11.12.2008.  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. Although the respondents at all time assured the complainant that for the delayed period beyond nine months, the complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% on the advance amount paid by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation from the respondents as the respondents are liable only to extent as stipulated under the advance registration form dated 4.6.2014 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

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 Rs.525000/- are lying deposited with the respondents, but despite this, the respondents have failed to hand over the physical possession of the said plot 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. Although the respondents at all time assured the complainant that for the delayed period beyond nine months, the complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% on the advance amount paid by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation from the respondents as the respondents are liable only to extent as stipulated under the advance registration form dated 4.6.2014 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          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 of Rs.5,25,000/- from the complainant.  The respondents have also failed to issue any letter regarding allotment of the plot to the complainant.  Since the year 2004, so many projects have been launched by the respondents, but 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 and to receive their balance amount, if any, from the complainant.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty 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:12.08.2015