Haryana

StateCommission

A/102/2017

CHARANJIT SINGH SIDHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP RESORT PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.SHARDA

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :      102 of 2017

Date of Institution:      30.01.2017

Date of Decision :        27.06.2017

 

Charanjit Singh Sidhu son of late Col. Kuldip Singh Sidhu, Attari House, Dakoja, Jalandhar Cantonment, now resident of Attari House, Dhilwan, Jalandhar Cantonment, Punjab.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      BPTP Resort Private Limited, M-II, Middle Circle, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi -110001 through its authorized signatory.

2.      Authorized Signatory, BPTP Resort Private Limited, M-II, Middle Circle, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.

3.      BPTP Limited, BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director.

4.      Managing Director, BPTP Limited, BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122015.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                            

Argued by:          Shri O.P. Sharda, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate for respondents

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed BPTP Resort Private Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short ‘Builder’) to pay Rs.5,90,625/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, December 03^rd, 2014 till its realization and Rs.3100/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of not handing over the possession of the apartment within the period stipulated in the agreement.    

2.      Charanjit Singh Sidhu-complainant booked three bedroom apartment with the builder.  He paid Rs.5,90,625/- as booking amount to the builder. The possession of the apartment was not offered to the complainant.  The complainant requested the builder to cancel the allotment and to adjust the amount of Rs.5,90,625/- towards the amount payable by his nephew Siddharth Kapila.  The builder did not accede to the request of complainant. The complainant further requested the builder to refund the booking amount but to no avail.

3.      The builder, in its written version, pleaded that complainant was not a ‘consumer’.  The allotment of the apartment was cancelled because the complainant was defaulter in making the payments.       

4.      The complainant has come up in appeal by raising two fold pleas, firstly, that the interest be allowed from the date of deposit on the awarded amount and secondly, the rate of interest be enhanced from 9% to 12% per annum.   

5.      First contention regarding payment of interest from the date of deposit is convincing. The complainant is certainly entitled to the interest from the date of deposit of the amount and not from the date of filing of the complaint. Regarding another contention of enhancement of interest, this Commission considers that the rate of interest is reasonable and does not call for any interference. 

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 27.06.2017	(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member		(Nawab Singh) President

U.K