Haryana

StateCommission

A/324/2015

MEENU JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GUPTA

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.324 of 2015

                                                   Date of Institution: 01/08.04.2015                          Date of Decision: 25.04.2017

 

Mrs. Meenu Jain W/o Sh.Nitin Jain r/o H.NO.1054, Sectgor-18, Faridabad, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s BPTP Ltd. Corporate office”BPTP Crest Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurgaon 122015 (Haryana) through its Director/Principal Officers.
2. M/s BPTP Limited, Sector-81, Nehar Paar, Greater Faridabad through its Manager.

          …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Kunal Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by complainant that she booked residential flat measuring 180 sq. yards  at Nehar Paar BPTP Sector 77, Faridabad on 09.05.2009 and booking amount of Rs.Two lacs was deposited at that time. The basic sale price of unit was Rs.16,08,000/-.  She further deposited Rs.1,89,501/- with O.ps.  She was allotted flat NO.PA-245, SF, measuring 180 sq. yards on 07.11.2011 at second floor  whereas first floor was mentioned in the application form. At the time of booking O.Ps. assured to deliver possession of flat within 30 months from the date of sanction of building plan, but, they failed to deliver possession as per terms and conditions of agreement. They demanded Rs.3,28,370/- from her on or before 27.11.2011.  She applied for housing loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited which was approved, but, amount was not released as builder did not provide layout plan and map. Her unit was blocked due to non-payment.  After consulting higher management, her unit was unblocked. They provided 48 hours to her to make payment of Rs.3,34,855/-, but, she told that payment would be made through bank loan. She was forced to approach India Bulls for housing loan, which was sanctioned on 19.11.2012, but, despite several requests, they failed to provide required documents to India Bulls.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that  flat buyer’s agreement was executed on 26.03.2012. She did not make payment in time, so her unit was cancelled. They did not assure her about delivery of possession of flat within 30 months from date of sanction of building plan.  NOC was issued to her on or before April 2012 (as in reply) . Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 24.02.2015 and directed as under:-

“Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.3,89,501/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complaint. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complinant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and restore the residential unit.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that O.Ps. neither delivered possession of the allotted flat nor provided required documents to the banker for disbursement of loan amount. They intentionally terminated buyer’s agreement, which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. So they be directed to pay interest from the date of deposit of amount and not from the date of filing of complaint besides Rs.One lac as mental harassment etc.

7.      Learned counsel for the O.ps. vehemently argued that she did not make the payment in time, so they rightly cancelled the allotment of flat and appeal be dismissed.

8.      When none of the parties have acted as per these terms and conditions they cannot blame each other. When possession was not handed over in time complainant can ask for the refund of the amount.    

9.      Now the question comes about interest.  Perusal of the file shows that complainant did not make payment in time. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in First appeal No.06 of 2014 titled as  Randhir Singh Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers (P) Ltd. decided on 27.11.2014 complainant cannot ask for interest when she is also at fault.  For ready reference Para No.10 of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“It is an admitted fact that both parties are at fault in this case.  As per above findings of the State Commission, admittedly the respondent had not developed the site and was not in a position to deliver the possession.  Be that as it may, the appellants also in this case were defaulters. When appellants themselves were the defaulters, therefore under such circumstances, they are not entitled for any interest.  On this issue, we are in full agreement with the reasonings given by the State Commission.”

 

10.    Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

April 25th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Member Addl.Bench

S.K.