1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay litigation cost of Rs.2 lacs and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case. 3. It has been stated in the complaint that M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., the opposite party was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of ‘Parsvnath Privilege’ at Plot No.11, Sector-Pi, Greater Noida in the year 2007 and made vide publicity of its amenities and facilities. Believing upon the representation of the opposite party, the complainant applied for allotment of two flats and deposited the booking amount. Later on, the opposite party allotted flat no.T-10-402 having an area of 1855 sq. ft. for Rs.5286750/- and flat no.T-14-401 having an area of 1855 sq. ft. for Rs.5286750/- on 14.06.2007. The payment plan was construction linked payment plan. As per demand of the opposite party, the complainant deposited instalment on time and deposited total amount of Rs.1898592.50/- for flat no.T-10-402 and Rs.4678433.98/- for flat no.T-14-401, till 2013. The due date of possession as per allotment was December 2010 but the project was unreasonably delayed and it is still incomplete. The complainant gave legal notice to the opposite party to refund his amount. Inspite of service of the notice, the opposite party did not respond. Then this complaint was filed on 02.11.2015. 4. The opposite party filed written reply and contested the complaint. In the written reply, the booking of the flat, allotment of the flat and deposits made by the complainants have not been disputed. However, the opposite party took plea that various allottees have committed default and due to paucity of the fund, they could not complete the project in time. After 2007, there was a global recession of economy which affected the booking of the flat in the project also. 5. The complainant filed rejoinder reply, affidavit of evidence of Mr. Rajeev Gupta and opposite party filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Madan Dongra. Both the parties have filed their written synopsis. 6. We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. As per own allegation of the opposite party, due to recession in economy, they could not complete the project. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that a home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession for unlimited period. Due date of possession was in the year 2010 and till today, the project has not been completed. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for relief of refund. So far as interest is concerned, counsel for the complainant states that since in relation to the same project, various complaints for refund have been allowed with interest @ 12% per annum therefore, the present complainant is also entitled for interest @12% per annum. However, the larger Bench of Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 Live Law (SC) 352, held that 9% interest on the deposit in case of refund is just compensation which amounts to restitutory and compensatory both. In view of the Supreme Court judgment, we are granting 9% interest. ORDER In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with a cost of Rs.50000/-. The opposite party is directed to pay the entire amount with interest @9% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months. |