Haryana

StateCommission

A/1103/2016

DLF HOME PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANURADHA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV G.S.CHAUHAN

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1103 of 2016

Date of the Institution:18.11.2016

Date of Decision: 29.08.2018

 

M/s DLF Homes, DLF Valley Panchkula, through its MD, SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Anuradha Gupta W/o Sh.Lalit Gupta Singh, R/o H.No.652, Sector-7, Panchkula.

2.      Lalit Gupta, S/o Sh.J.R.Gupta, R/o H.No.652, Sector-7, Panchkula.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Parveen Jain, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

 

Delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      It was alleged by complainant-respondents that on 15.02.2010, they applied for four bedroom flat measuring 420 sq. mtr. for an amount of Rs.52,13,559.75 with the opposite party (O.P.) and deposited the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as booking amount.    At the time of booking, the OP was not having any type of sanction from the competent authorities to construct the flats and due to this reason OP did not enter into an agreement with them. The complainants were allotted flat No.A-1/57 at first floor.   Agreement was executed  on 31.01.2011 between the parties vide which O.P. was bound to give/offer of possession of the flat to the allottee within a period of 24 months from the date of agreement.  It was also mentioned in the agreement that there were some other companies and individuals who were the owners of the property.  The complainants paid a sum of Rs.41,25,981/- upto 31.03.2015, but, O.P. failed to give possession of the said flat to them within the stipulated period.     The complainant requested the O.P. to give the complete details of EDC and IDC charges but to no avail.  O.P. has also demanded service tax from them, which has already paid in the year 2013.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the opposite party.  It was alleged that construction was complete in all respect and 86 units have been offered for possession to the owners.  Agreement executed between the parties in January 2011.  As per clause 11 (a), (b), and (c ), the company endeavored to complete the construction of the project within 24 months unless there was delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in 11 (b) and 11 (c ).  Vide order dated 19.04.2012 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21786-88/2010, there was a stay on construction  and according to clause 43 of the agreement, OP could not be liable for the delay.  The delivery of possession of the independent floor was delayed on account of force majeure that is pending litigation before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt.  O.P. has further submitted that in case of delay in giving possession,  they agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.10/- sq. ft. per month in terms of clause 19/18 of the application form to the complainants. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      After hearing both the parties by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula  (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 29.09.2016 and directed as under:-

“i.       To hand over physical possession of the unit, allotted in favour of the complainants, complete in all respects, to the complainants on or before 30.11.2016.

ii.       To pay compensation, by way of interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainants, from 31.01.2014, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.

iii.      To pay compensation by way of interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, due to the complainants w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10^th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a. from the  date of default, till payment if made.

iv.      Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a, from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

v.       Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as litigation costs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization.”

5.       Feeling aggrieved therefreom, appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Parveen Jain  the learned counsel for the appellant  as well as Mr. Abhineet Taneja the learned counsel for the respondents.  All the documents which are attached with the appeal has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  as per the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the company could not hand over the possession of the flat.  Since the construction was completed in all respect and possession of some of the flats were handed over to the owners, although, learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the above-said facts and wrongly allowed the complaint, so the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law and be set aside with all intents and purposes.

8       Learned counsel for the complainant-respondents vehemently argued that as per sale agreement executed between the parties on 31.01.2011 vide which O.P. was bound to give/offer of possession of the flat to the allottee within 24 months from the date of agreement, but, O.P. failed to give possession of the said flat to them within the stipulated period, so they requested to refund the amount of the flat along interest.   A placed has been reliance upon a authority of this commission in First Appeal No.1104 of 2016 titled as M/s DLF Homes, Vs. Harbhajan Singh decided on 21.03.2019.

9.      It is not in dispute that complainants booked flat with the O.P. on 15.02.2010. It is also not disputed that sale agreement was executed between the parties on 31.01.2011.  It is not disputed that complainants had purchased the flat for Rs.52,13,559.75 out of which, the complainants had paid Rs.4725981/-. 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 24 months from the date of agreement i.e. 30.01.2013.  Since the O.P. is not in a position to deliver the possession of the flat complete in all respect due to constraint circumstances.    

10.    In the considered opinion of this Commission, impugned order  passed by the learned District Forum does not suffer from any illegality and while maintaining the same in all respect, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed with the directions to the O.P. that the possession of the unit would be delivered to the respondents (hereinafter as a “Complainants”) within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.  It is further clarified that since the terms and conditions have not been honored  by the present appellant, on the other hand the appellant has utilized the amount deposited by the complainants for sufficiently for a long period and in the interest of justice, the complainants would further be entitled to get the interest  @ 12% from the respective deposits,  in case the possession is not delivered within the stipulated period, in that eventuality, the complainants would further be entitled to get interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of default till realization.  Remaining order passed by the learned District Forum would remain the same. With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

August  29th, 2018                                                    Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.