Haryana

StateCommission

A/1036/2016

PARDEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.BEDI

02 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1036 of 2016

Date of the Institution:02.11.2016

Date of Decision: 02.08.2018

 

Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh.Dharam Singh, r/o H.No.452, Sector-1, Rohtak (Haryana).

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

ADEL Landmarks Ltd, (formerly known as ERA Landmarks Ltd.) B-24, Sector-3 Noida (U.P.).

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.P.S.Bedi, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Rajiv Sidhu, Advocate for respondent.

 

O R D E R

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

 

1.      It was alleged by appellant-complainant that on 27^th October, 2012, he got transferred a 2 BHK flat No.A1-903 of 1005 sq. ft. in ‘ERA DIVINE COURT (HIGH RISE) Sector-76, Faridabad from opposite party (O.P.). Prior to that date i.e. 27.10.2012, the flat was in the name of Sh. Brij Nandan Sharma.  The total cost of the said flat was fixed as Rs. 25,11,800/-. At the time of transfer an amount of Rs.11,70,711/- had been paid by the first buyer to the O.P. and the above-said amount was paid by him to the first buyer.  He deposited transfer fee of Rs.25,125/- alongwith service tax of Rs.3105/- with the O.P. 

2.      It has been further alleged that O.P. sent demand notice on 22.03.2014 to him for depositing Rs.104899.75/- on completion of first floor roof slab, which was deposited by him.  Sale agreement was executed  on 06.02.2012 between the parties vide which O.P. was bound to give/offer of possession of the unit to the allottee within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of that particular tower with grace period of six months, but, O.P. failed to give possession of the said unit to him within the stipulated period.    As per clause 10.2 of agreement, the allottee was entitled to Rs.75/- sq. mt. per month for the delay in offering possession. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  So O.P. be directed to give following relief to him:-

                             “ O.P. may kindly be directed to pay Rs.75/- sq. mt. per month to the complainant for the delay in offering possession beyond the above said period till the possession is given/offered by the opposite party or to refund the whole amount of Rs.13,00,836/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service on the part of OP.”

3.       O.P. was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 11.03.2016.

4.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak  (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 08.04.2016 and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the opposite party shall refund the price of Rs.11,70,711/- paid by the complainant to the first owner and Rs.105000/- deposited with the O.P. vide their demand notice dated 22.03.2014 i.e. Total Rs.12,75,711/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% p..a on the awarded amount from the date  of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

5.       Feeling aggrieved therefreom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.P.S.Bedi  learned counsel for the appellant has heard at length.  All the documents which are attached with the appeal has also been properly perused and examined.

7       Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that as per sale agreement executed between the parties vide which O.P. was bound to give/offer of possession of the unit to the allottee within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction of that particular tower with grace period of six months, but, O.P. failed to give possession of the said unit to him within the stipulated period. Learned District Forum had already granted interest  @  9%  which is on the lower side and interest be enhanced as prayed for.   

8.      In order to substantiate this particular issue, the complainant had tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and the documents Ex. C-1 to C-7.  As per the contents of the affidavit and the documents executed between the parties it is not in dispute that the sale agreement was executed between the parties.  The payment has also been made in different phases, which has not been disputed.  As per the sale agreement executed between the parties, the possession of the flat was to be given within a period of 36 months with grace period of six months.  The O.P. is not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit complete in all respect due to constraint circumstances. 

9.      In the considered opinion of this Commission,        District Forum has granted 9% interest on the deposited amount, which is on lower side, so interest @ 12% instead of 9% is awarded on the deposited amount.    With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

August  02nd, 2018                                                   Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.

 

 

 

The complainant is also entitled for Rs.75/- sq. yard per month of the area of the flat for the period of delay in offering possession of the flat as a compensation.  Apart from this the litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- had also been allowed. 

 

 

8.

 

    

s.k.